1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO. 4777   OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28356/2008]

  DEVI PRASAD AND ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

  VISHWA NATH PRASAD AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The parties hereto had filed a deed of settlement before the Court of First  

Subordinate Judge,  Bhojpur,  Ara,  in Title  Suit  No.  420/2005. Respondent No.1 was  

shown to be a party to the said compromise deed. He, however, filed an application on  

or about 25.8.2006 alleging that his signature was forged on the compromise deed and  

only on that basis, by an order dated 24.7.2009 the learned Subordinate Judge directed  

as under:  

“Heard  on  objection  petition  filed  on  behalf  of  the  defendant  

against compromise dated 8.5.06 which was filed in the court on  25.8.06.  After  objection  and  other  defendants  impleaded  

subsequently  also filed objection against  the compromise and a  case law has been filed on behalf of defendant. AIR 1997 Punjab

2

and  Haryana  Page-155,  Court  to  not  impose  compromise  on  

unwilling party and Order 23 Rule 3 where it  is  proved to the  satisfaction of the court that 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 whole or in part of the subject matter of the suit the  court shall order such agreement compromise or satisfaction to be  

recorded  and  pass  decree  provided  and  where  alleged  by  one  party and denied by other that adjustment or satisfaction has been  

arrived at the court shall decide the question but no adjournment  shall be done for the purpose of the deciding question and as per  

explanation  and  agreement  of  compromise  which  is  void  and  voidable under the Indian Contract Act shall not be deemed to be  

lawful within the meaning of this rule. Objection  filed  by  the  defendant  prior  to  filing  of  

compromise on the ground that  compromise has  been got  filed  with conspiracy and is forged and plaintiff has obtained signature  

on pretence of giving land on lease to others due to why they have  signed on the plain and stamp paper not binding on him.

As parties are not willing to the compromise, and keep  pending the case for decide whether fraud and forgery has been  

committed  or  not  in  compromise  which  is  filed  subsequently  appears to be not desirable.

In the circumstances, the compromise petition can not be  accepted. In the light of this order all objection filed on behalf of  

defendants are disposed of.  To. 7.8.08 for filing documents and  framing issues.”         

A civil revision application filed thereagainst has been dismissed by the  

learned Single Judge, saying:

3

“Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court,  

there  is  no  jurisdictional  error  in  the  impugned  order.  Accordingly, this application is dismissed.”  

The matter relating to compromise of the suit is governed by Order 23  

Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said provision read as under:

“Compromise of suit.- Where it is proved to the satisfaction  of 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 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  part  and  denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been  

arrived  at,  the  Court  shall  decide  the  question,  but  no  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.”   

In view of the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C., there cannot be any  

doubt whatsoever that when the first respondent raised a question alleging that  

his signature was forged which was denied and disputed by the appellant, it was  

obligatory  on  the  part  of  the  Court  concerned  to  enquire  thereinto  and  the

4

impugned orders have been passed without initiating any proceedings in terms of  

the proviso appended to Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C.   

For  the  reasons  aforementioned,  the  impugned  judgment  cannot  be  

sustained which is set aside accordingly and the appeal is allowed. However, in  

the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.  

The  Trial  Court  shall  enquire  into  the  application  filed  by  the  first  

respondent.  

........................J (S.B. SINHA)

........................J   (DEEPAK VERMA)    NEW DELHI, JULY 20, 2009.