Statement recorded by court in writing as good as written compromise: Punjab and Haryana High Court - ECAS Punjab

Statement recorded by court in writing as good as written compromise: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Share This

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 18

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a statement made by a party or his counsel for setting a matter and taken down in writing was as good as a written compromise. The statements recorded in the presence of counsel for the parties before a judicial officer in a court of law did not have lesser sanctity than an instrument of compromise drawn outside the court and attested by some oath commissioner, notary public or any other authority.

'Documentation must for transparency'

  • Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill said the very purpose of incorporating in Civil Procedure Code the fact that a compromise was required to be in writing was to ensure everything was in black and white without ambiguity to prevent a party from backing out on the some terms or to misinterpret the terms and conditions of settlement.

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill asserted certain sanctity was attached to a statement made by a party in the court. It has to be presumed that the same was recorded voluntarily. In case a party was permitted to wriggle out of such statement by conveniently raising frivolous allegations against his or the opposing counsel, it would virtually lead to mockery of the court.

Justice Gill added the very purpose of incorporating in Civil Procedure Code the fact that a compromise was required to be in writing was to ensure everything was in black and white without ambiguity to prevent a party from backing out on the some terms or to misinterpret the terms and conditions of settlement. The purpose was to avoid undue harassment and wastage of court's precious time, lest the parties kept agitating the matter time and again.

The matter has its genesis in an application by the landlords seeking the tenant's ejectment from residential premises for non-payment of rent and personal necessity. During the pendency of an appeal in the matter, the parties settled the matter among themselves before getting their statements recorded.

The tenant, on the next date, took the plea that he was allured into making a statement regarding compromise by the landlords. But his plea was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated September 9, 2019, resulting in the filing of the revision petition before the High Court.

The counsel for the tenant-petitioner said the landlord was claiming compromise. But "written instrument" regarding compromise was not brought on record. It was a case where the petitioner was tricked into making a statement by the way of allurement and collusion of the counsel. But the statement was withdrawn on the very next date of hearing. In these circumstances, the compromise was not valid, Justice Gill said.



from The Tribune https://ift.tt/34eHxbz

No comments:

Post a Comment

Pages