Madras High Court
CRP/4931/2026 of P. Samidurai Vs Vallambal on 11 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-09-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 4931 of 2026
1. P. Samidurai
S/o.Pichaipillai, Periyamanakudi Post,
Ariyalur Tk., Ariyalur Dist.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Vallambal
W/o.Pichaipillai Padayachi,
Periyamanakudi Village, Ariyalur Tk. and Dist.
2.Pichaipillai
S/o.Ramasamy Padayachi, Periyamanakudi
Village, Ariyalur Tk. and Dist.
3.Selvaraj
S/o.Pichaipillai Padayachi, Periyamanakudi Village, Ariyalur Tk. and Dist.
4.Saradambal
W/o.Pichaipillai Padayachi,
Periyamanakudi Village, Ariyalur Tk. and Dist.
Respondent(s)
Revision filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to direct the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur to prepare the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.190
of 1995 dated 14.09.1999 recording the compromise dated 07.09.1999.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Kamadevan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.K.M.Harish
For M/s.PV Law Associates
For R.3
R.1 & R.2 – Notice dispensed with
R.4 – Notice served – no apperance
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.M.Harish for M/s PV Law Associates, counsel for the third respondent.
2. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that though the parties reached an amicable settlement, pending suit, and reported compromise, the trial Court has merely recorded the compromise and disposed of the suit by a docket order dated 14.09.1999, which is extracted for easy reference. “Compromise petition filed. C.F.of Rs.100/-each by D-1 to D-4. The compromise recorded. The suit is decreed in terms of the compromise memo. Compromise is part and parcel of the decree. No costs.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that without drafting a decree and issuing the same to the parties, merely recording the compromise by way of a docket order does not serve the purpose and does not benefit any of the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the third respondent, on instructions, admits to the fact the parties reached settlement and the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise as indicated in the Docket Order dated 14.09.1999. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent that in one of the items that has been allotted to the third respondent, the extent has been incorrectly mentioned as 7 1/2 cents instead of 1/2 cent. He therefore seeks for necessary correction to be carried out in the memo of compromise.
5. Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner has no serious objection for the necessary amendment to be carried out in the joint memo of compromise reflecting the actual extent of 1/2 cent instead of 7 1/2 cents at line-4 of Clause-5 of Condition No.7 of the Compromise Memo.
6. In view of the demise of plaintiff and first defendant and their surviving legal heirs being defendants 2 to 4, defendants 2 to 4 shall file a Memo setting out the correction to be carried out in the decree to be drafted in line with the settlement agreement reached between the parties on 07.09.1999.
7. On such Memo being filed, the Sub Court, Ariyalur shall draft the decree in terms of the joint memo of compromise subject to the modifications sought for in the joint memo to be filed by the defendants 2 to 4 and pass a final decree after calling upon the defendants 2 to 4 to supply appropriate non-judicial stamp papers and court fees as
P.B.BALAJI.,J sr applicable.
8. The settlement agreement shall be engrossed on a non-judicial stamp paper and shall form part of the final decree.
9. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. 11.09.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The Principal Subordinate Court, Ariyalur