Order 6, Rule 15 (1) of C.P.C stipulates that every pleading shall be
varied at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other
person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of
the case. Sub Rule (4) was inserted to Order 6, Rule 15 of C.P.C by Act No.46 of
1999 w.e.f. 01.7.2002 which stipulates that the person verifying the pleading shall
also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings.
14. However, the court below accepting the compromise petition decreed
the suit on the terms and conditions of the said compromise. Though the said
application was defective due to non compliance of the aforesaid provision the
said fact was not taken note of. On the above back ground the court below has not
considered whether fraud has been practised or not taking into consideration the
8
provisions as discussed. It further reveals from the L.C.R. that the order sheet in
which the compromise was recorded is a plain paper one without assigning any
reason why printed form of order sheet was not appended thereto. The court
below while considering the application under Order 23, Rule 3-A of C.P.C should
have also taken note of all these facts.
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.6535 OF 2011
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
Barendra Biswal Vs Rama Roy @ Das and another
P R E S E N T :
KUMARI JUSTICE S.PANDA
Date of Judgment : 25.03.2015
Citation; AIR 2015 orissa 125
Print Page
varied at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other
person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of
the case. Sub Rule (4) was inserted to Order 6, Rule 15 of C.P.C by Act No.46 of
1999 w.e.f. 01.7.2002 which stipulates that the person verifying the pleading shall
also furnish an affidavit in support of his pleadings.
14. However, the court below accepting the compromise petition decreed
the suit on the terms and conditions of the said compromise. Though the said
application was defective due to non compliance of the aforesaid provision the
said fact was not taken note of. On the above back ground the court below has not
considered whether fraud has been practised or not taking into consideration the
8
provisions as discussed. It further reveals from the L.C.R. that the order sheet in
which the compromise was recorded is a plain paper one without assigning any
reason why printed form of order sheet was not appended thereto. The court
below while considering the application under Order 23, Rule 3-A of C.P.C should
have also taken note of all these facts.
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.6535 OF 2011
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
Barendra Biswal Vs Rama Roy @ Das and another
P R E S E N T :
KUMARI JUSTICE S.PANDA
Date of Judgment : 25.03.2015
Citation; AIR 2015 orissa 125
