Revision Petition Against An Order Rejecting Application Under Proviso To Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC To Set Aside Compromise Deed Is Not Maintainable: Sikkim HC

A revision petition was filed by the revisionist assailing the order passed by the Civil Judge rejecting the application filed by him under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the compromise deed between the parties is in contravention to the provisions of Section 4 and Section 11 of the Pensions Act of 1871, and therefore the deed is void and unlawful.

The Bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed “On a plain reading of section 115 as its stands makes it clear that the stress is on the question whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding. If the answer is “yes” then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if the answer is “no” then the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, if the impugned order is interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable."

Advocate Tarun Choudhary appeared for the Revisionist while Senior Advocate B Sharma appeared for the Respondents.

Two questions arose for the consideration of the Court in this revision petition i.e. maintainability of the petition under Section 115 of the CPC and whether the Pension Act of 1871 barred the revisionist from entering into a compromise deed.

The revisionist submitted that the Pension Act provided the pension to be paid to the wife of the deceased person, the respondents who were not legally wedded wives would not be entitled to the same as such the compromised deed entered between the revisionist and the respondents was liable to be set aside as being barred by law.

The Court further held, “On a query of this Court as to whether the Pension Act, 1871 has been brought into force in Sikkim in view of Article 371F (n) of the Constitution of India it was submitted at the bar that the Pension Act, 1871 had not been extended to Sikkim as yet and therefore, it is the Sikkim Government Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 and Sikkim Government Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2010. Thus, the contention of the revisionist that the Pension Act, 1871 bars the compromise deed of sharing the pension with the respondents would not assist the revisionist in getting the relief prayed for.”

The Court also discussed the purpose of the mediation and said that it is a process whereby parties attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute with the assistance of a third person referred to as a Mediator, who does not have the authority to impose a settlement upon the parties to the dispute.

Further, the Mediators are neutral persons who encourage the parties to the dispute to reach an amicable settlement and if after the process of mediation, the records reveal that the parties have arrived at a settlement and signed on a compromise deed it must be accepted that the parties negotiated their dispute and arrived at a settlement unless the contrary is proved by the revisionist.

Reiterating the principles, the Court furthermore said, “The revisionist, as held by the learned Trial Court has only alleged that she signed the compromise deed under misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is a positive assertion which must be specifically alleged and proved against a particular person and the bald statement made by the revisionist would not suffice. There is no other material placed by the revisionist which would even remotely give an impression that anybody had misrepresented the facts to the revisionist to compel her to sign the compromise deed. The records also reveal that during the entire process the revisionist was personally present as well as represented by a counsel.”

For all the above reasoning, the Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Revision Petition.

Cause Title: Prameela Gurung v. Urmila Manger and Anr.

Appearances:

Revisionist: Advocate Tarun Choudhary

Respondents: Senior Advocate B Pradhan and Advocate Lidya Pradhan

Click here to read/download the Judgment