(Prayer: This CRP is filed under Sec.115 of CPC, 1908 Against the Order dated 05.12.2015 Passed in O.S.No.326/2015 on the file of The Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Rejecting the Compromise Petition filed under order 23 Rule 3 of CPC.)
1. This petition is filed against the order dated 05.12.2015 passed in O.S.No.326/2015 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, rejecting the compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The present petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.326/2015 filed against the defendants before the Trial Court, seeking for declaration of title and injunction contending that they are the owners / of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, both the parties agreed to resolve the dispute amicably and filed a compromise petition on 10.09.2015. The Trial Court, after incorporating the entire terms of the compromise petition rejected the compromise petition on 05.12.2015. Hence the present civil revision petition.
3. Sri.Abhinav.R., learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the compromise petition is erroneous and contrary to law. He contended that the entire case of the petitioners is that the suit schedule property was purchased by them, lies in Sy.No.40/4 and not in 47/4 of T.Hosahalli Village and that an error had crept into the Sale Deed executed in favour of the father of the petitioner. Therefore, he sought for declaration of title and ownership in Sy.No.40/4. It is for this reason, the names of the persons shown in the revenue records of Sy.No 40/4 are made as defendants in the suit. Therefore, he sought for declaration in respect of the suit schedule property. He further contended that the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the original documents are not produced is totally irrelevant as the law does not require production of original documents at the time of reporting a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. The Trial Court is required to examine whether the compromise is lawful or not? If the Court is not satisfied in the averments made, the terms between the parties, it is the duty of the Court to get clarification and satisfy itself and proceed to decree the suit in the compromise petition. The same has not been done in the present case. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court.
4. Per contra, Sri.Manchar.B.K., learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the fact that they have entered the compromise petition and supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that if the Court is not satisfied with the averments made in the compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC,it is the duty of the. Court to satisfy itself after getting clarification, the Court ought to have proceeded to decree the suit.
5. I have heard the learned counsel on both the sides. The point that would arise for consideration is:
Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the compromise petition entered into between the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC?
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material, on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration on the basis of title and it is not forthcoming that the defendants have filed any objections or written statement against the plaintiffs. When both the parties filed compromise petition, it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself first after hearing necessary clarification from the learned counsel for the parties or the parties who are present before the Court and proceed with the compromise petition. The Trial Court, while passing the impugned order has expressed the doubt about the ownership of Sy.No.40/4 only on the ground that one K.N.Basavaraju and others shown in the RTC of Sy.No.47/4 which is nothing to do with the suit property and Sy.No.40/4 which is the suit schedule property. Furthermore, in the RTC pertaining to Sy.No.40/4, the name of the person is mentioned as Hanumappa @ Hanumanna , Son of Thammanna. According to the Trial Court, the original documents are not produced before the Court and further recorded a finding that the RTC depicts in Sy.No.47/4 in respect of K.N. Basavaraju who is not made as a party. In the genealogical tree also, the name is mentioned as Hanumappa, Son of Thammannappa. On these doubts, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the compromise petition. Both the parties have clarified that the suit is only in respect of Sy.No.40/4 and not in respect of Sy.No.47/4and Hanumappa, Son of Thammanna is also called as Hanumappa, Son of Thammannappa. Therefore, there is no impediment for the Trial Court to proceed with the suit. Since the Trial Court expressed doubt about the survey numbers and the names of the persons mentioned in respect of the property in question, it was the duty of the Court to get clarification either from the parties or from the counsel and proceed with the compromise petition after holding clarification or enquiry. The same has not been done in the present impugned order. Therefore, the point raised in the present revision petition has to be answered in 'negative' holding that the Trial Court is not justified in dismissing the compromise petition between the parties.
8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 05.12.2015 in O.S.No.326 / 2015 passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the compromise petition filed between the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC after obtaining necessary clarification either from the parties or the learned counsel for the parties and pass orders strictly in accordance with the provisions under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC.