Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: S. 147 & O. XXXII, r. 7 S. 147

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------   -----S. 147 & O. XXXII, r. 7 S. 147 to be read in conjunction with O. XXXII, r. 7-Words "with out leave of the Court expressly recorded" in O. XXXII, r. 7 --Require Court to carefully examine compromise, consider propriety of same in interest of minor and to declare in clear words that compromise is beneficial to minor-Court granting leave recording only "because the minor wall not suffer, permission is granted" Sanction given to compromise held, not proper-Minor not bound by decree passed on basis of such compromise.   A I R 1942 Lah. 205 ; A I R 1933 Lah. 468 ; A I R 1942 All. 85 ; A I R 1933 Mad. 890 ; A I R 1936 All. 811 ; A I R 1920 Lah. 408 ; P L D 1959 Azad J & K 19 ; AIR 1922 P C 186 and AIR 1937 PC 35 ref. JUDGMENT   ABDUL HAMID KHAN, J.-This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10-2-1960.   Amir Baz (defendant-respondent No. 6) had filed a suit for possession by pre-emption against Mangta appellant and respondents Nos. 2 to 6 on 3-9-53 on behalf' of himself and as next friend of Sadiq minor (respondent No. 1). A compromise was effected with the permission of the trial Court on 18-11-53, Amir Baz withdrew from the suit which was dismissed. Thereafter Sadiq, the minor, through his mother Rajan Begum brought the present suit in the Court of- the Sub-Judge, Mirpur seeking to avoid the compromise decree dated 28-11-53 on the ground that the com promise was to his manifest disadvantaged: The parties were put to the following issues :-   Whether the compromise on which the decree dated 18-11-1953 is based, was tothe detriment of the minor, and if so, what' is it its effect on the suit ? (O. P. P.)   Whether the compromise was effected without the per mission of the Court, and ifso, what is the effect of such a compromise on the present suit ? (O. P. P.)'   Relief ?   The Sub-Judge, Mirpur by his judgment dated 30-10-57 decreed Sadiq's suit on the ground that while granting leave to compromise the interest of the minor had not been kept in view. Mangta respondent went up in…