APPLICATION FOR COMPROMISE OF SUIT

DRAFTING, PLEADING AND CONVEYANCING

Submitted to:
Miss. MADHU RANA

Submitted BY:
Ayushi Srivastava
Roll No. 201225
Semester VIII
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM

ACKNOWLEDEMENT
I would like to thank my Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing lecturer, Miss. Madhu Rana,
for giving me this opportunity of doing a project, for guiding me during the making of this
project on the topic Application for Compromise of Suit.
Last but not the least; I am thankful for my seniors and friends help in the editing and
formatting the content.
Ayushi Srivastava

Abstract
Application for 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 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 party 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. 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.
Problem for Compromise of Suit
Mr. Miglani is the resident of Flat No. 201, Dwarapu Madhav Apartment, Lawsons Bay
Colony, Visakhapatnam. Mr. Kapoor is the resident of 365, Sector B1, Mahanagar,
Visakhapatnam. Mr. Miglani is the brother-in-law of Mr. Kapoor. Mr. Kapoor took a loan of
Rs. 4,00,000 from Mr. Miglani on 24 th November, 2014 for a time period of 2 months under a
promissory note number 04/2014 dated 24th November, 2014. After the completion of 2 months
there was no response from Mr. Kapoor. On asked by Mr. Miglani on 1 st February, 2014 via an
email there was no response. Then after a continuous series of failed trial by Mr. Migalani,
again a message was sent through whatsapp reminding him of the same on 8 th March 2015 as
Mr. Kapoor had blocked Mr. Miglanis number, it was also found that even after Mr. Kapoor
had read Mr. Miglanis text message he did not reply and blocked him immediately itself.
Luckily, on 18th April, 2015 Mr. Miglani was walking and came across Mr. Kapoor, on being
asked about the amount Mr. Kapoor asked for an extension of period and promised to pay,
3

within a month i.e., by 18th May, 2015. Again, even after the completion of one month, there
was no response from the side of Mr. Kapoor. Mr. Miglani tried reaching Mr. Kapoor and it
was found that the door of his house was locked, and again the same thing repeated, it was
later on discovered that even though Mr. Kapoor was inside the house he used lock it from so
as to avoid Mr. Miglani. Mr. Miglani sent a notice via speed post on 29 th July, 2015 asking Mr.
Kapoor to pay back the money otherwise Mr. Miglani shall file a suit against him but then
there was no reply. From 29th July, 2015 till 2nd November, 2015, Mr. Miglani repeatedly sent
several notices to Mr. Kapoor but all in vain. Finally, on 6 th November, 2015, Mr. Kapoor
replied through speed post and again asked for extention for a period of 2 months. Again after
the completion of 2 months there was no reply. As a result Mr. Miglani filed a recovery suit
against Mr. Kapoor on 4th February, 2016. Since Mr. Miglani and Mr. Kapoor are relatives,
therefore Mr. Kapoor insisted for settlement rather than going to the court to which Mr.
Miglani affirmed on 14th February, 2016 under the settlement deed No. 02/2016. Also, Mr.
Kapoor promised and assured to pay the principal amount along with 10% interest and that in
case of any delay the amount to be charged with a daily interest of 8%. Mr. Miglani now wants
to write an application for compromise of suit in this regard.

Table of Content
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Introduction..4
Burden on Parties.4
When alleged by one party and denied by the other party of the settlement5
When can an application for compromise of suit be filled?.............................................5
Compromise of suit in case of a minor.5
Amendments..6
Case Laws..6
Gurpreet Singh vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) vs. Rajinder Singh and

Others
8. Problem on Compromise of Suit.8
9. Solution..10
10. Bibliography..13

Table of Cases
1. Gurpreet Singh vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel (1988) 1 SCC 270
2. Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) vs. Rajinder Singh and Others
(2006) 5 SCC 566

Introduction
Compromise of Suit
It is open to the parties to compromise, adjust or settle a suit by an agreement or compromise.
The general principle is that all matters which can be decided in a suit can also be settled by
means of a compromise1.
Burden on Parties
In case of Banwari Lal v Chando Devi2, it was held that a court passing a compromise decree
performs a judicial act and not a ministerial act. Therefore, the court must satisfy itself that the
agreement is lawful and it can pass a decree in accordance with it and that such decree can be
enforced against all the parties to the compromise. If the compromise is not lawful, an order
recording compromise can be recalled by the court (AIR 1993 SC 1139).
When alleged by one party and denied by the other party of the settlement
Proviso to Rule 3 lays down 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 no
adjournment to be granted unless the court thinks fit to grant it. An agreement or compromise
which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act shall not be deemed to be lawful
within the meaning of this rule Explanation to Rule3).
When can an application for compromise of suit be filled?
No agreement or compromise in a representative suit can be entered into without the leave of
the court, otherwise it shall be void (Rule 3-B).
Compromise of suit in case of a minor
Similarly, a compromise on behalf of a minor cannot be made without the court's leave.
Nothing in this Order shall apply to any proceedings in execution of a decree or order (R4).
Case Laws

1 Prithvichand v S. Y. Shinde AIR 1993 SC 1929

2 AIR 1993 SC 1139
6

1. Gurpreet Singh vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel3

Facts: The respondent therein Chatur Bhuj Goel, a practising advocate at Chandigarh first
lodged a criminal complaint against Colonel Sukhdev Singh, father of the appellant, under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"), after he had
served the respondent with a notice dated 11.07.1979 forfeiting the amount of Rs.40,000/- paid
by him by way of earnest money, alleging that he was in breach of the contract dated
04.06.1979 entered into between Colonel Sukhdev Singh, acting as guardian of the appellant,
then a minor, and the respondent, for the sale of residential house No. 1577, Sector-18- D,
Chandigarh for a consideration of Rs,2,85,000/-. In terms of the agreement, the respondent was
to pay a further sum of Rs.1,35,000/- to the appellant's father - Colonel Sukhdev Singh by
10.07.1979 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.1,10,000/- on or before 31.01.1980 when
the deed of conveyance was to be executed. 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 07.07.1979
but the appellant's father did not turn up to receive the same. Although the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate by order dated 31.10.1979 dismissed the complaint holding that the dispute
was of a civil nature and no process could issue on the complaint, the learned Single Judge, by
his order dated 11.02.1980 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. Aggrieved Colonel Sukhdev Singh came up in appeal to this Court
by way of special leave. While construing Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.
Held: Under Rule 3 as it now stands, when a claim in suit has been adjusted wholly or in part
by any lawful agreement or compromise, the compromise must be in writing and signed by the
parties and there must be a completed agreement between them. To constitute an adjustment,
the agreement or compromise must itself be capable of being embodied in a decree. When the
parties enter into a compromise during the hearing of a suit or appeal, there is no reason why
the requirement that the compromise should be reduced in writing in the form of an instrument

3 (1988) 1 SCC 270

7

signed by the parties should be dispensed with. The court must therefore insist upon the parties
to reduce the terms into writing.
2. Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) vs. Rajinder Singh and
Others
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) vs. Rajinder Singh and Others 4, the
term `instrument' used in above-referred Gurpreet Singh's case refers to a writing a formal
nature, this Court explained that when the hearing of letters patent appeal commenced before
the High Court, the parties took time to explore the possibility of settlement and when the
hearing was resumed, the appellant's father made an offer for settlement which was endorsed
by the counsel for the appellant also. The respondent was also present there and made a
statement accepting the offer. The said offer and acceptance were not treated as final as the
appeal was not disposed of by recording those terms. On the other hand, the said proposals
were recorded and the matter was adjourned for payment in terms of the offer. When the matter
was taken up on the next date of hearing, the respondent stated that he is not agreeable. The
High Court directed that the appeal would now be heard on merits as the respondent was not
prepared to abide by the proposed compromise. The said order was challenged before this
Court by the appellant by contending that the matter was settled by a lawful compromise by
recording the statement by appellant's counsel and the respondent's counsel and the respondent
could not resile from such compromise and, therefore, the High Court ought to have disposed
of the appeal in terms of the compromise. It is in this factual background, the question was
considered with reference to Gurpreet Singh's case (supra). This was explained in Pushpadevi's
case that the distinguishing feature in that case was that though the submissions made were
recorded but that were not signed by the parties or their counsel, nor did the Court treat the
submissions as a compromise. In Pushpadevi's case, the Court not only recorded the terms of
settlement but thereafter directed that the statements of the counsel be recorded. The statement
of the counsel were also recorded on oath read over and accepted by the counsel to be correct
and then signed by both counsel. In view of the same, in Pushpadevi's case, it was concluded
that there was a valid compromise in writing signed by the parties.5
4 (2006) 5 SCC 566
5 Website: www.legalblog.in, Webpage: http://www.legalblog.in/2011/08/compromise-betweenparties-role-of.html#sthash.QbVDro6k.dpuf, Article: Compromise between parties, Last visited at:
16th March 2016 at 09:24 pm.
8

Amendments
High Court Amendments
Allahabad1. In rule 3 of Order 23 between the words or compromise and or where insert the
words in writing duly signed by parties; and between the words subject-matter of the
suit and the words the Court insert the words and obtains an instrument in writing
duly signed by the plaintiff.
2. At the end of the Rule 3 of Order 23 add the following, namely:
Provided that the provisions of this rule shall not apply to or in any way affect the
provisions of the Order XXXIV, Rules 3, 5 and 8.
Explanation - The expression 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. U.P.
Gaz., 31 .8.1974, Pt. II, p. 52 (31.8.1974).
Provided that - T.N. Government Gaz. 18.2.1981, Pt. III, S. 2, p. 18.
Orissa- Delete High Court Amendment - On, Gaz., 25.5.1984, Pt. III, A, p. 70.
Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh- Add the following provisos to the rule:
Provided that the hearing of a suit shall proceed and no adjournment shall be granted in it
for the purposes of deciding whether there has been any adjustment or satisfaction unless the
Court for reasons to he recorded in writing thinks fit to grant such adjournment, and provided
further that the judgment in the suit shall not be announced until the question of adjustment or
satisfaction has been decided:
Provided further that when an application is made by all the parties to the suit either in
writing or in open court through their counsel that they wish to compromise the Suit, the
Court may fix a date on which the parties or their counsel should appear and the compromise
be recorded but shall proceed to hear those witnesses in the suit who are already in
attendance, unless for any other reason to be recorded in writing, it considers it impossible or
undesirable to do so. f upon the date fixed no compromise has been recorded, no further
adjournment shall be granted for this purpose, unless the court, for reasons to be recorded in

writing, considers it highly probable that the suit will be compromise on or before the date to
which the court purposes to adjourn the hearing.6
Problem for Compromise of Suit
Mr. Miglani is the resident of Flat No. 201, Dwarapu Madhav Apartment, Lawsons Bay
Colony, Visakhapatnam. Mr. Kapoor is the resident of 365, Sector B1, Mahanagar,
Visakhapatnam. Mr. Miglani is the brother-in-law of Mr. Kapoor. Mr. Kapoor took a loan of
Rs. 4,00,000 from Mr. Miglani on 24 th November, 2014 for a time period of 2 months under a
promissory note number 04/2014 dated 24th November, 2014. After the completion of 2 months
there was no response from Mr. Kapoor. On asked by Mr. Miglani on 1 st February, 2014 via an
email there was no response. Then after a continuous series of failed trial by Mr. Migalani,
again a message was sent through whatsapp reminding him of the same on 8 th March 2015 as
Mr. Kapoor had blocked Mr. Miglanis number, it was also found that even after Mr. Kapoor
had read Mr. Miglanis text message he did not reply and blocked him immediately itself.
Luckily, on 18th April, 2015 Mr. Miglani was walking and came across Mr. Kapoor, on being
asked about the amount Mr. Kapoor asked for an extension of period and promised to pay,
within a month i.e., by 18th May, 2015. Again, even after the completion of one month, there
was no response from the side of Mr. Kapoor. Mr. Miglani tried reaching Mr. Kapoor and it
was found that the door of his house was locked, and again the same thing repeated, it was
later on discovered that even though Mr. Kapoor was inside the house he used lock it from so
as to avoid Mr. Miglani. Mr. Miglani sent a notice via speed post on 29 th July, 2015 asking Mr.
Kapoor to pay back the money otherwise Mr. Miglani shall file a suit against him but then
there was no reply. From 29th July, 2015 till 2nd November, 2015, Mr. Miglani repeatedly sent
several notices to Mr. Kapoor but all in vain. Finally, on 6 th November, 2015, Mr. Kapoor
replied through speed post and again asked for extention for a period of 2 months. Again after
the completion of 2 months there was no reply. As a result Mr. Miglani filed a recovery suit
against Mr. Kapoor on 4th February, 2016. Since Mr. Miglani and Mr. Kapoor are relatives,
therefore Mr. Kapoor insisted for settlement rather than going to the court to which Mr.
Miglani affirmed on 14th February, 2016 under the settlement deed No. 02/2016. Also, Mr.
Kapoor promised and assured to pay the principal amount along with 10% interest and that in
6 Website: www.lawzonline.com, Webpage: http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/civil-procedurecode/order23-rule3-code-of-civil-procedure.htm, Article: Order 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, Last
visited on 16th March 2016 at 09:21 pm.
10

case of any delay the amount to be charged with a daily interest of 8%. Mr. Miglani now wants
to write an application for compromise of suit in this regard.
Solution

APPLICATION FOR COMPROMISE OF SUIT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VISAKHAPATNAM

ANDHRA PRADESH
CIVIL SUIT NO. 242 OF 2016

In the matter of:

Mr. Ram Miglani
S/O Mr. Vijay Miglani
R/O Flat No. 201,
Dwarapu Madhav Apartment,
Lawsons Bay Colony,
Visakhapatnam-530001...(Applicant)
Versus
Mr. Shayam KapoorS/O Mr. Anumay Kapoor
R/O 365, Sector B1,
Mahanagar, Visakhapatnam- 530001..(Opposite Party)
11

Application For The Compromise Of Civil Suit No. 44 Of 2015

The applicant respectfully states as follows:
1. That the applicant is Mr. Ram Miglani, S/O Mr. Vijay Miglani, R/O Flat No. 201, Dwarapu
Madhav Apartment, Lawsons Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam, hereinafter shall be addressed
as applicant.
2. That the opposite party is Mr. Shyam Kapoor, S/O Mr. Anumay Kapoor, R/O 365, Sector
B1, Mahanagar, Visakhapatnam, hereinafter shall be addressed as the opposite party.
3. That the applicant is the brother-in-law of the opposite party.
4. That the opposite party took a took a loan of Rs. 4,00,000 from the applicant on 24 th
November, 2014 for a time period of 2 months under a promissory note number 04/2015
dated 24th November, 2014.
5. That after the completion of 2 months there was no response from the side of the opposite
party of the loan.
6. That on asked by the applicant on 1st February, 2014, via an email (the copy of the email
has been attached in the Annexure-II), then after a continuous series of failed trial by the
applicant, again a message was sent through whatsapp (the copy has been attached in
Annexure-III) reminding the opposite party of the same on 8th March 2015 as the opposite
party had blocked the applicants number, it was also found that even after the opposite
party had read the applicants text message he did not reply and blocked him immediately
itself. That the opposite party after a repeated notice from 9 th February, 2016 to 2nd March,
2016 did not reply.
7. That on 18th April, 2015 when the applicant was walking through the street, he came across
the opposite party, on being asked about the amount the opposite party pleaded for an
extension of period and promised to pay, within a month i.e., by 18 th May, 2015. Again,
even after the completion of one month, there was no response from the side of the
opposite party.
8. That the applicant tried reaching the opposite party and it was found that the door of his
house was locked, and again the same thing repeated, it was later on discovered that even
though the opposite party was inside the house he used lock it from so as to avoid the
applicant.
9. That the applicant sent a notice via speed post on 29 th July, 2015 (Copy of the same has
been attached in Annexure-IV) asking the opposite party to pay back the money otherwise
the applicant will be forced to file a suit against him but then there was no reply. From 29 th
July, 2015 till 2nd November, 2015, the applicant repeatedly sent several notices to the
12

opposite party but all in vain. Finally, on 6th November, 2015, the opposite party replied
through speed post (copy of the same has been attached in Annexure-V) and again asked
for extension for a period of 2 months. Again after the completion of 2 months there was
no reply.
10. That the applicant filed a recovery suit against the opposite party on 4th February, 2016.
11. That the opposite part on 10th February, 2016 offered for a settlement and compromise and
promised to pay the principal amount along with 10% interest and that in case of any delay
the amount to be charged with a daily interest of 8%.
12. That the applicant agreed to the settlement on 14 th February, 2016 under the settlement
deed No. 02/2016.
In the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the applicant prays the Honble
Court to:
1. Accept the proposal for the settlement dated 14 th March, 2016, under the settlement
deed No. 02/2016.
2. Make such an order or orders as the Honble Court deems fit.

Place: Visakhapatnam

(Signature of the Applicant)

Date: 19th February 2016

Mr. Ram Miglani

Advocate for the Applicant

AFFIDAVIT
In the Court of
In the Civil Suit No.
In the matter of:
Mr. Ram Miglani...(Applicant)
S/O Mr. Vijay Miglani
R/O Flat No. 201,
13

Dwarapu Madhav Apartment,

Lawsons Bay Colony,
Visakhapatnam
530001
Versus
Mr. Shayam Kapoor..(Opposite Party)
S/O Mr. Anumay Kapoor
R/O 365, Sector B1,
Mahanagar, Visakhapatnam
530001
Affidavit in support of the application for the compromise of the suit in the Civil Suit No.
I, Mr. Ram Miglani, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the accompanying application has been drafted under my instructions
2. That the contents of paras 1 to 10 of the accompanying application are correct and true to
the best of my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therein.
3. That I further solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of this affidavit of mine are
correct and true and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
Affirmed here at: Visakhapatnam

Deponent

Date: 15th March 2016

14

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:
1. Justice P.S. Narayana, Civil Pleadings & Practice along with Model Forms, 10 Ed,
Allahabad Law House, 2015.
Websources:
2. www.lawzonline.com
3. www.legalblog.in

15