Bhagat Ram Vs. Jalam

civil practise - compromise--genuiness of--evidence pertaining to execution of compromise not discussed--held, his finding that compromise was suspicious cannot be sustained.;he has not discussed the evidence at all pertaining to the execution of the compromise. his finding that the compromise was suspicious, therefore, cannot be sustained. he should have considered the evidence and should have come to a firm conclusion whether the compromise had been arrived at by the parties and it has been executed by them or not. in the absence of such a finding, the order of the learned munsif dated 11-4-83 cannot be maintained.;revision accepted - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - the record of the case has not been called and in these circumstances, the latter course appears to be better......and merely on the basis of some suspicion, he could not have refused to record the same. the two grounds on which the learned munsif thought that the compromise was suspicious were that the compromise was scribed by the learned counsel , for the plaintiff and it had not been produced before the court immediately. he has not discussed the evidence at all pertaining to the execution of the compromise. his finding that the compromise was suspicious, therefore, cannot be sustained. he should have considered the evidence and should have come to a firm conclusion whether the compromise had been arrived at by the parties and it had been executed by them or not. in the absence of such a finding, the order of the learned munsif dated 11-4 83 cannot be maintained.4. having arrived at this conclusion, i am left with two courses: either to consider the evidence here and arrive at my own findings, or to direct the learned munsif to do so. the record of the case has not been called and in these circumstances, the latter course appears to be better.5. i, therefore, aceept this revision, set aside the order of the learned munsif, kapasin, dated 11-4-1983 and send the case back to him with a direction that he will consider the evidence pertaining to the alleged compromise and shall then record his finding in accordance with law and proceed with the case accordingly. the parties are directed to appear before him on november 21, 1983. as the matter has been decided at the admission stage. i shall not make any order as to costs.