JUDGMENT
R.C. Jain, J.
1. This revision petition raises a short question
of law:- “Is an agreement entered between the parties
pursuant to a compromise arrived with the aid of police
is not a valid and enforceable agreement and cannot
form the basis of a summary suit under the provisions
of order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure.?”
2. The petitioner herein filed a suit under order
xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of
Rs. 90,424/- against the respondent on the basis of
agreement dated 8th September, 1998, reached between
the parties pursuant to compromises/settlement through
the cooperation of S.H.O. Police Station I.P. Estate,
New Delhi. The learned Civil Judge to whom the suit
was made over instead of treating the said suit as a
summary suit and taking further proceedings in
accordance with the provisions of order xxxvII CPC, by
an order dated 11.5.2000 treated the said suit as an
ordinary civil suit and directed the issue of summons
for settlement of issues in the ordinary form against
the defendant, holding that the agreement relied upon
by the plaintiff was not an agreement contemplated by
Rule 2(b) of order xxxvII and it lacked order xxxvII
CPC. Aggrieved by the said order the petition had
earlier filed a CM (M) bearing No. 388/00 which was
dismissed as withdrawn by this court on 17.7.2000,
however with liberty to the petitioner to take
appropriate remedy against the impugned order. The
petitioner has subsequently filed the present revision
petition.
3. Notice to show cause was issued to the
respondent who did not choose to appear or he
represented in the proceedings. I have heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner and have given my
thoughtful consideration to his submissions. The
agreement which is the basis of the summary suit filed
by the petitioner is contained in a deed dated 8.9.98
prefaced as ‘compromise letter’. The relevant portion
the said deed reads as under:-
“Today, the 8.9.98, we both
have agreed to solve the matter by
mutual understanding through the
cooperation, S.H.O. I.P. Estate, New
Delhi-110002 for a sum of Rs. 28,300/-
to be paid by Ajay Kohli to Mr. Kewal
Krishan Chadha, Proprietor, M/s. K.C.
& Co. as per Rs. 1,000/- per month
starting from 1.10.1998. So and so
forth, on first day of each month.
Full payment of Rs. 28,300/- shall be
paid by Mr. Ajay Kohli by monthly
cheques of Rs. 1,000/-. All the
cheques shall be given in advance to
Kewel Krishan Chandha, Prop. K.C. & Co.
by Mr. Ajay Kohli and if he fails to
honour the payment or defaults in
payment or dishonours the cheque for
any reason, the above understanding of
compromise shall cease and Mr. Kewal
Krishan Chadha, Proprietor of M/s K.C.
& Co. shall have all the right to
take the legal action against Mr.
Ajay Kohli for full amount of
Rs. 64,018.25 Shares shall be returned
on payment.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
emphatically urged that the impugned order of the
learned trial court in treating the summary suit filed
by the petitioner as an ordinary civil suit is illegal
and based on wholly erroneous premises that the
agreement envisaged in order xxxvII CPC should be
voluntarily agreement prior to the arising of dispute
and the admission should be prior to the intervention
of any form either judicial, police etc. and that any
agreement wherein the liability is allegedly admitted
after the dispute has arisen before the police is
outside the preview of order xxxvII CPC. There seems
to be considerably force in this contention because no
such ridders as in sought to be imported exist in the
provisions of order xxxvII CPC. Sub-rule (2) of Rule (1) of order xxxvII CPC provides that subject to the
provisions of Sub-rule (1), the provisions of order
xxxvII apply to the following classes of suits,
namely:-
(a) suits upon bills of exchange, hundies and
promissory notes;
(b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to
recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by
the defendant, with or without interest, arising,-
(i) on a written contract; or
(ii) on an enactment where the sum sought to be
recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a
debt other than a penalty; or
(iii) on a guarantee when the claim against the
principle is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only.
5. It is, therefore, manifest that a suit for the
recovery of debt or liquidated demand in money payable
by the defendant arising on a written contract can be
filed and treated as a summary suit. A bare reading of
the agreement contained in the deed dated 8.9.98 would
leave no doubt that the defendant had agreed to pay a
liquidated sum of money to the plaintiff. The mere
fact that the said agreement was arrived between the
parties by mutual understanding through the aid or
cooperation of a police officer with whom a complaint
had been made by itself does not render the said
agreement invalid or unenforceable in law on the
premise that it is unvoluntary. It might be open to
the defendant to take such a plea in the defense of the
suit but it was not for the trial court to raise any
adverse presumption so as to doubt the validity of the
agreement merely because the same was reached between
the parties pursuant to a compromise following a
complaint before the police. In the considered view of
this court the basis of the summary suit is a written
contract and the petitioner was within his rights to
maintain a summary suit based on such an instrument.
6. In view of the above discussion the revision
petition is allowed and the impugned order of the
learned civil judge dated 11.5.2000 is hereby set
aside. The trial court is directed to registered and
proceed with the suit as a summary suit.