JINESHWARDAS (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. versus SMT. JAGRANI. AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 179 · Decided: 26-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JINESHW ARDAS (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SMT. JAGRANI. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 26, ~~03 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
B 
Order XXlll, Rule 3 read with Order 111 Rule I-Compromise ofsuit-
Dispute settled in second appeal on basis of admission made by counsel C 
for parties-Held, while construing the words "in writing and signed by 
the parties" as inserted in Rule 3 of Order XXJJI by CPC (Amendment) 
Act, 1976, effect necessarily has to be given to Rule 1 of Order lll-
Besides, a judgment or decree passed as a result of consensus arrived at 
before court cannot always be said to he one passed on compromise-It D 
may at times be a judgment on admission, as in the instant case. 
Words and Phrases: 
Words "in writing and signed by the parties"-Occurring in r.3 of 
Order XXIJJ, CPC-Connotation oj 
E 
Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed a suit against the 
respondents for specific performance and recovery of possession on the 
basis of an alleged agreement of sale of immoveable property. The 
defendants' stand was that the said document constituted no agreement F 
of sale. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court 
affirming the decision, held that there was no agreement of sale and 
it was only an agreement to repay. However, in se~ond appeal though 
questions of law were framed, counsel for the parties agreed to 
amicably settled the matter and in view of the admission made by 
counsel for the respondents, that respondent would pay a certain G 
amount to the appellants, the High Court disposed of the matter 
accordingly. The appellants filed a review petition contending that the 
decision in the second appeal was a compromise decree, but the 
compromise was not entered into "in writing and signed by the parties" 
in terms of order XXI~I, Rule 3 CPC. The High Court rejected the H 
179 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUP.P. 4 S.C.R. 
A review. 
In the present appeal filed by the appellants, it was contended for 
the respondents that before the High Court the counsel appearing for 
the parties were duly authorized to argue the second appeal on merit 
B and, if necessary, compromise the same. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. While construing the words "in writing and signed by 
parties" as inserted in Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil 
C Procedure, 1908 by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act of 1976, effect necessarily 
has to be given to Rule l of Order Ill of the Code. That apart, a 
judgment or decree passed a result of consensus arrived at before 
court, cannot always be said to be one passed on compromise or 
settlement and adjustment .. It may, at times, be also a judgment on 
D admission, as in this case. [185-F-H, 186-A-B) 
E 
Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India & Ors., (1992) l 
sec 31, relied on. 
' 
Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel, (1988) l SCC 270, relied on~ 
2. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, there are 
. 
. 
-
,... 
. -
~ 
no adequate reasons on merits also to call for interference in a second 
appeal. The so-called questions formula~ed cannot be c~nsider~d to-.be 
even questions of law and, at any rate, not substantial questions o~ law, 
F as required under Section 100, CPC. The courts below have concu~rently 
rejected the claim of the plaintiff/appellants on_ pure findings of fact 
based upon relevant evidence and nothing survived for consideration 
at all in such an appeal. Furthf?r, respondents side alone appear~ to 
have been saddled with additional liabilities under the decision of. the 
High Court, though on the basis of admission made by. cou1.1sel 
G appearing for the parties. There is nothing said against the counsel, 
who appeared for parties; nor allegations have been made a~tributing 
any impropriety to their action. (186-C-E] 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal Nos. 8104-
-.. 
'~ 
H s1os of 2003. 
.. 
JINESHWARDAS V. SMT. JAGRANI [RAJU. J.] 
181 
From the judgment and Order dated 9.5.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh A 
High Court in S.A. No. 693/96 and M.C.C. No. 622 of 2002. 
Prakash Shrivastava for the Appellants. 
A.K. Sanghi for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the' ·Court was delivered by 
D. RAJU, J. : Special leave granted. 
The appellant before this Court was the appellant in Second Appeal 
No. 693of1996 on the file of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. C 
The original plaintiff Jineshwardas, whose legal representatives are the 
appellants in this

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.