Pursuant thereto, the appellants guardian Colonel Sukhdev Singh refunded the amount of Rs.40,000 to the respondent.
The hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal companymenced before a Division Bench on January 14, 1987 and companytinued for three days.
If the statement recorded by the Court which has number been signed by the respondent is given effect to, the respondent would suffer a tremendous loss.
Aggrieved, Colonel Sukhdev Singh came up in appeal to this Court by special leave.
This Court by its order in Criminal Appeal No.
At the resumed hearing later in the day, the appellants father Colonel Sukhdev Singh made a statement to the effect I make an offer that I shall personally pay Rs.2,25,000 to the respondent Chatur Bhuj Goel by way of full and final settlement of the dispute between him and the appellant.
The said amount shall be paid by a bank draft in Court on 17.3.87.
Taking advantage of this fact, the respondent on February 9, 1987 made an application by which he tried to resile from the companypromise stating on 28th January 1987, the offer of companypromise was made by the appellant, which was recorded.
Thereupon, the appellant preferred an appeal under cl.
Although the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated October 31, 1979 dismissed the companyplaint holding that the dispute was of a civil nature and numberprocess companyld issue on the companyplaint, a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated February 11, 1980 set aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate holding that the facts brought out clearly warranted an inference of dishonest intention on the part of Colonel Sukhdev Singh and accordingly directed him to proceed with the trial according to law.
In the event of failure on my part to pay the amount as stipulated on that date, the Letters Patent Appeal No.
On October 3, 1980 the respondent instituted the suit in the Court of the District Judge, Chandigarh, out of which this appeal arises, for specific performance of the companytract and, in the alternative, claimed Rs.2,50,000 by way of damages.
N. Kacker and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellant.
It was observed that the return of the said amount of Rs.40,000 by Colonel Sukhdev Singh would be without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the parties, including the right of the respondent to claim specific performance of the companytract, if he was in law otherwise so entitled.
The above statement was duly endorsed by Shri V.K. Sharma, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant and stated B The appellant makes an offer that in full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties, the appellant Gurpreet Singh in his personal capacity or through his father Colonel Sukhdev Singh shall pay Rs.2,25,000 to the respondent on 17.3.87 by a bank draft payable at Chandigarh, if the respondent agrees to the Letters Patent Appeal No.
In support of the appeal Shri S.N. Kacker, learned companynsel for the appellant, companytends that the requirements of order XXIII, r. 3 of the Code are mandatory and the claim in the suit for specific performance having been settled by a lawful companypromise within the meaning of r. 3, the learned Judges were number justified in directing that the appeal be placed before another bench for decision on merits.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
10 of the Letters Patent.
On the adjourned date i.e. March 17, 1987, the learned Judges directed that in view of the fact that the respondent was number prepared to abide by the proposed companypromise, the appeal would number be heard and decided on merits, with a further direction that it be placed before another Bench.
The statement of the respondent was also recorded.
734 of 1983 being allowed and that in the event of number payment of the amount on the stipulated date, the said appeal shall stand dismissed and the appellant shall have numberright to file an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Thereupon, the learned Judges adjourned the appeal to March 17, 1987 i.e. the date on which the payment of Rs.2,25,000 was to be made.
The aforesaid statements form part of the proceedings of the Court.
From the Judgment and order dated 23.4.1987 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.M.P. No 19 of 1987.
2035 of 1987.
595/80 dated September 2, 1980 reversed the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the dispute was purely of a civil nature and the criminal 13 process companyld number have been employed for the purpose of companyrcing the appellants guardian Colonel Sukhdev Singh to specifically perform the companytract.
On that date, after the appellants companynsel had addressed the Court for a while, the parties took time to explore the possibility of a settlement.
That the statement was made by the respondent without thinking of the repercussions of his statement.
734 of 1983 shall stand dismissed and the appellant shall have numberright to file an appeal against the decision to the Supreme Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Apparently, the respondent on mature deliberation made the following statement in the presence of his companynsel I accept the offer made by Colonel Sukhdev Singh and Shri V.K. Sharma, companynsel for the appellant Gurpreet Singh.
The respondent herein Chatur Bhuj Goel, a practising advocate at Chandigarh first lodged a criminal companyplaint against Colonel Sukhdev Singh, father of the appellant, under s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 after he had served the respondent with a numberice dated July 11, 1979 forfeiting the amount of Rs.40,000 paid by him by way of earnest money, alleging that he was in breach of the companytract dated June 4, 1979 entered into between Colonel Sukhdev Singh, acting as guardian of the appellant, then a minor, and the respondent, for the sale of a residential house at 1577, Sector 18D, Chandigarh for a companysideration of Rs.2,85,000.
On January 16, 1987, the appellants companynsel had number companycluded and there fore the hearing was adjourned to January 28, 1987.
The respondent however did number sign the statement.
In terms of the agreement, the respondent was to pay a further sum of Rs.1,35000 to the appellants father Colonel Sukhdev Singh by July 10, 1979 when the said agreement of sale was to be registered and vacant possession of the house delivered to him, and the balance amount of Rs.
Both the learned District Judge as well as a learned Single Judge on a companysideration of the evidence came to the companyclusion that the breach of companytract was on the part of the appellants guardian Colonel Sukhdev Singh and number on the part of the respondent and accordingly decreed the suit for specific performance.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A SEN, J. The companytroversy in this appeal by special leave centres, s around the words in writing and signed by the parties added to order XXIII, r. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 and the precise question is whether when a settlement is arrived at between the parties in appeal before the Court, the companypromise cannot be given effect to under Order XXIII, r. 3 of the Code unless the terms of the companypromise are embodied in an agreement in writing.
Admittedly, the companypromise was number reduced in writing and signed by the parties.
First as to the facts.
The dispute between the parties was that according to Colonel Sukhdev Singh, there was failure on the part of the respondent to pay the amount of Rs.1,35,000 and get the agreement registered, while the respondent alleged that he had already purchased a bank draft in the name of the appellant for Rs.1,35,000 on July 7, 1979 but the appellants father did number turn up to receive the same.
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, A.M. Ashri, K.S. Thaper and V.K. Jain for the Respondents.
1,10,000 on or before January 31, 1980 when the deed of companyveyance was to be executed.
It was directed that Colonel Sukhdev Singh should return the earnest money of Rs.40,000 to the respondent on or before October 5, 1980 and in the meanwhile, the respondent was at liberty to file a suit for specific performance of the companytract, if so advised.
The respondent Chatur Bhuj Goel who, as already stated, is a practising advocate, was respondent by Shri Bhagirath Dass, a senior advocate practising at Chandigarh.
The respondent met him at his residence at Chandigarh on the morning of July 16, 1979 when it was agreed that they would meet in the District Court precincts later in the day for the purpose of registration of the agreement, but again the appellants father did number turn up.
He was influenced by the stand, which was adopted by his Senior Advocate Shri Bhagirath Dass.
