The P&H High Court stated that the statements documented before a Judicial Officer in a Court have the same sanctity as an instrument of Compromise drawn outside the Court that is attested by an Oath Commissioner/Notary Public or any other authority. It was held by Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill while discharging a petition filed by a lessee that is against the order of compromise passed by the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The verdict confirms that if a counsel makes a statement towards compromise, then the party would be equally bound by it.
The case refers to a suit against eviction proceedings initiated by the defendant.
In the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the lessee was directed to clear rent debts. This order was charged by the plaintiff before the Appellate Authority which recorded a compromise between the parties.
But the plaintiff redacted from his statements the next date and moved a request seeking discarding of his plea on merits. He said that he was allured into making a statement.
The court said that a certain sanctity is attached to a statement made by a party in the Court and it has to be assumed that it was recorded voluntarily. If a party is allowed to escape from such statements by raising allegations against any counsels, it will lead to ridiculing of the Court. One can be exempted from his statement only if it is proven to the Court that the documented statement was said by fraud or deception. In this case, there is nothing to prove that the plaintiff had filed any complaint at the Bar Council. The Court noted the Supreme Court's decisions following the Gurpreet Singh's case. It was held that judgment passed as a result of consensus arrived at before court can be a judgment on admission.