Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Deepanshu Dass and Sri Dheeraj Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties. The present revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside and cancel the impugned orders dated 14.03.2008 and 28.05.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.320 of 2007 with the direction to the court below to accept the compromise, Paper No. 17-Ka and decide the case expeditiously in accordance with law and such other suitable orders be also passed as deemed just and proper. The submission of the counsel for the revisionist is that the present revisionist has filed a Suit No. 320 of 2007 for declaration and permanent injunction against the opposite parties-defendants and as per the settlement applicant has right and control over the property mentioned in para-5 of the revision which are situated at Lucknow and accordingly a relief was claimed in the nature of declaration in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, agents, attorneys, assigns, employees, servants and / or anybody else claiming rights through or under the defendants declaring the plaintiff as the sole and absolute owner in possession of the assets and investments left by late Smt. Phool Kumari Bhargawa on her death as described in para-5 of the revision. The further submission of the counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist moved an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. In para-3 of the same the properties situated at Lucknow were mentioned and request was made that the suit be decided in terms of compromise and made part of the decree to be passed by the court below.
Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow vide order dated 14.03.2008 rejected the compromise on the ground that documents shows that apart from Lucknow there is house at New Delhi and certain shares and income tax refund is of the New Delhi address. The revisionist moved an application for recall of order dated 14.03.2008 and the same was also rejected vide order dated 28.05.2009.
The further submission of the counsel for the revisionist is that the suit was filed with respect to the properties situated at Lucknow, which is evident from the relief clause of the suit and also from the compromise. He further submitted that as per Section 17 of C.P.C. The suit can be filed in any of the court having jurisdiction if the immovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of different courts. Section 17 of C.P.C. is being reproduced as under:-
"Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts. Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate:
Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court."
Learned counsel also emphasizes on the Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. which provides as under:-
"Compromise of the Suit.- Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, (in writing and signed by the parties) or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith."
On the basis of aforesaid provisions, learned counsel submitted that the suit as well as the application for compromise under Order 23 rule (3) was maintainable before the lower court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow and without appreciating the relevant provisions, his application for compromise has been rejected.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has no objection and agrees with the contention of the counsel for the revisionist. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and gone though the relevant provisions.
In para-5 of the suit, the details of the property situated at Lucknow is described and relief was also sought with respect to the said property. The compromise also mentioned about the details of the property situated at Lucknow only.
In view of the above, the orders passed by the courts below suffer from illegality and the same are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the orders dated 14.03.2008 and 28.05.2009 are hereby set aside. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow is directed to consider the application of compromise, Paper No. 17-Ka as well as the Suit No. 320 of 2007 a fresh and decide the same as per law expeditiously, if possible, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.2.2010 Suresh/-