|
Compromise of 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 satisfied the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree is accordance therewith **[so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit:]
*[Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but not adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.]
*[Explanation-An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule;]
*Ins. by Act 104 of 1976, sec. 74 (w.e.f. 1-2-2024).
*Subs. by Act 104 of 1976, sec. 74. for "so far it relates to the suit" (w.e.f. 1-2-2024).
HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS
Allahabad.-In Order XXIII, in rule 3,-
(i) between the words 'or compromise' and 'or where', insert the words, 'in writing duly signed by the parties' and between the words 'subject-matter of the suit' and the words 'the Court', insert the words 'and obtained an instrument in writing duly signed by the plaintiff, (ii) at the end of the rule, insert the following proviso and Explanation, namely:-
"Provided that the provisions of this rule shall not apply to or in any way affect the provisions of Order XXXIV, rules 3, 5 and 8.
Explanation.-The expressions, 'agreement' and 'compromise', include a joint statement of the parties concerned or their counsel recorded by the Court, and the expression 'instrument' includes a statement of the plaintiff or his counsel recorded by the Court."
[Vide Notification No. 155/Alld-87, dated 31st August, 1974.]
[Ed.-This amendment relates to rule 3 prior to its amendment made by Central Act 104 of 1976, sec. 74 (w.e.f. 1-2-2024).]
Karnataka.-In Order XXIII,-
(i) re-number rule 3 as sub-rule (1) thereof
(ii) after sub-rule (1) as so renumbered, insert the following sub-rule, namely:-::
"(2) Where any such agreement or compromise as is referred to in sub-rule (1) is placed before the Court by a party suing or defending in a representative capacity in a suit instituted, conducted or defended under the provisions of rule 8 of Order I of this Code, the Court shall not proceed with the consideration of the same or to pass a decree in accordance therewith without first notice of the application for recording such agreement or compromise in the manner prescribed in sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of Order 1 of this Code for giving notice of the institution of such suit. The expenses of giving such notice shall be borne by such party or parties as the Court may direct." (w.e.f. 30-3-2024)
Madras.-In the Order XXIII, in rule 3, in the proviso, for the words "Provided that", the following shall be substituted, namely:-
"Provided that the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction, in so far as it differs from the subject-matter of the suit, is within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court concerned: Provided further that."
[Vide R.O.C. No. 3382/78-F1 and S.R.O. No. G-3/81 (w.e.f. 23-1-2024).]
Kerala.-In Order XXIII/ after rule 3, insert the following rule, namely:-
"3A. Settlement of oath.--If the parties agree to have the suit or any part of it decided by an oath taken by one of them in Court or elsewhere and tender a written agreement signed by both of them setting forth the terms of the oath and the place where it is taken, the Court may accept such agreement. After the oath has been taken in the manner proposed, the Court shall decide the case in terms of the agreement. After the agreement has been accepted by the Court, it shall not be competent to any of the parties to withdrawn therefrom without the leave of the Court. If any party withdraws or refuses to take the oath without lawful excuse, the Court may decide the case against him or pass such order as it deems proper." (w.e.f. 9-6-2024)
|