Skip to content


(Vobilineni Buchi) Venkatarayudu and ors. Vs. Venkata Kumara Mahipati Surya Rao and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Mad416
Appellant(Vobilineni Buchi) Venkatarayudu and ors.
RespondentVenkata Kumara Mahipati Surya Rao and anr.
Cases ReferredSrinivasachariar v. Kumara Thathachariar
Excerpt:
- .....of the high court suit and that this concluded the parties in the two suits before the learned district munsif. the matter was posted for argument and the learned district munsif accepted the affidavit filed by the plaintiff's advocate who stated that he had no instructions in stating that his client would abide by the result of the decision of the high court. he therefore passed an order directing the suit to-be posted for trial.4. for several reasons i consider that this order cannot be interfered with in revision. in the first place the question whether the plaintiff's pleader was authorized to make the statement that his client would abide by the decision of the high court is one of fact which it is not competent for me to interfere with in revision. it has not been contended.....
Judgment:

Walsh, J.

1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Munsif of Ramachandrapur directing that the two suits on the file of his Court, O.S. 42 of 1921 and 62 of 1921 should be posted for trial. The pleaders for the parties in these two cases had put in a petition for adjournment stating amongst other things:

as both these parties have agreed to abide by the High Court's decision in these suits the trial of these suits O.S. 62 of 1921 and O.S. 42 of 1921 should be stayed.

2. ('It should be noted that there has. been only one suit, A.S. 10 of 1922 which went on appeal and not ' suits '). The following order was made on that petition:

Time may be granted till the decision of the High Court on the issue whether the suit land forms part of the plaintiff's zamindari is given.

3. An endorsement was made on the same day, 'suit will be adjourned. Petition closed.' On 11th January 1927 the suit was called on and the plaintiff wanted to adduce evidence. The defendant opposed this stating that the parties had agreed to abide by the decision of the High Court suit and that this concluded the parties in the two suits before the learned District Munsif. The matter was posted for argument and the learned District Munsif accepted the affidavit filed by the plaintiff's advocate who stated that he had no instructions in stating that his client would abide by the result of the decision of the High Court. He therefore passed an order directing the suit to-be posted for trial.

4. For several reasons I consider that this order cannot be interfered with in revision. In the first place the question whether the plaintiff's pleader was authorized to make the statement that his client would abide by the decision of the High Court is one of fact which it is not competent for me to interfere with in revision. It has not been contended that if he was not authorized he would have been free to compromise the suit, and if authority were needed on the point Jaga-pathi Mudaliar v. Ekambara Mudaliar [1898] 21 Mad. 274 Thenal Ammal v. Sokkammal [1918] 41 Mad. 233, may be quoted. As a matter of fact the translation of the vakalat which has been filed by the petitioner himself shows that instructions were necessary to file a withdrawal or a compromise petition The learned District Munsif has rightly pointed out that this differentiates the case from Srinivasachariar v. Kumara Thathachariar [1918] 8 M.L.W. 470, where a plea of want of instruction had been raised and found. against. There is another ground on which revision cannot be allowed in this case. The application in which it was stated that the parties would abide by the result of the High Court decision was not an application to record any compromise. It was simply an application for adjournment stating certain reasons. The Court granted the adjournment and closed the petition. It may be correct that had the parties really come to an arrangement to abide by the High Court's decision, the effect of that decision once given would have been to make that compromise a binding one. But that is quite different from saying that the learned District Munsif's adjournment was an order recording the compromise. In fact it is clear from the subsequent proceedings that it was not so regarded as the parties argued the matter in full as to whether there has been any authority for the statement for the compromise or not. Such argument was quite unnecessary if the District Munsif had already recorded the compromise. In that case plaintiff would have had to petition to set aside that order. I cannot therefore regard this as an order recording the compromise and there is in fact no petition under Order 23, Rule 3 to record the compromise. If it be said that the objection raised when the plaintiff wished to adduce evidence amounts to an application to the Court to record a compromise under Section 23 (3) then the refusal of the Court to do so is a matter for which the remedy would be by way of appeal and not by way of revision petition. The petitions are therefore dismissed with costs of the plaintiff (respondent) in both the petitions.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //