AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 2234 ::1991 AIR SCW 2567 ::1992 (1) SCC 31 ::(1992) 1 BankCLR 85 ::(1992) 2 CurCC 1 ::(1992) 1 APLJ 5 ::(1992) 1 BLJ 504 ::1992 BLJR 1 1 ::1991 HRR 517 ::(1992) 2 Mad LJ 1 ::(1992) 1 Mad LW 591 ::(1992) 1 Ker LT 368 ::(1991) 2 RenCR 659 ::(1991) 2 RentLR 400 ::(1994) 2 BankLJ 41 ::(1991) 4 JT 15 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : AIR 1991 Bom 185)

Hon'ble Judge(s): T. K. Thommen, R. M. Sahai , JJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.23 R.3, O.3 R.1, S.11— Expression "in writing and signed by the parties" occurring in O.23, R.1 - Includes Counsel and agent of party - Compromise decree signed by Counsel and not by parties in person - Is binding, executable and operates as res judicata even if it extends beyond subject matter of suit - Counsel's power to enter into compromise - Not curtailed, even impliedly, by 1976, C.P.C. amendment. The words 'in writing and signed by the parties', inserted in O.23, R.3, C.P.C. by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 necessarily mean and include duly authorised representative and Counsel. Thus a compromise in writing and signed by Counsel representing the parties, but not signed by the parties in person, is valid and binding on the parties and is executable even if the compromise relates to matters concerning the parties, but extending beyond the subject matter of the suit. A judgment by consent is intended to stop litigation between the parties just as much as a judgment resulting from a decision of the Court at the end of a long drawn out fight. A compromise decree creates an estoppel by judgment.(Para 40 43 44) Counsel's role in entering into a compromise has been traditionally understood to be confined to matters within the scope of the suit. However, ....