Insofar as the issue raised in CWJC No. 4932 of 2012 is concerned, the rejection of the objection of the petitioner is contrary to the statutory provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which requires a positive consent by all the parties to the proceedings for making a valid compromise. Mr. Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a division bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1972 Patna 17 (Mathura Singh and others Vs. Deodhari Singhand others), more particularly to paragraph 5 and 12 thereof to submit that no compromise can be maintained without obtaining consent from all the parties to a suit. The debarment of the petitioner from filing a written statement cannot be a ground to reject his objection to the compromise rather it is an independent right which vests in the petitioner under the provision of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code. In view of the judicial pronouncement rendered in the case of Mathura Singh (supra) and the statutory provision of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code, the order impugned insofar as it has dismissed the objection petition of the petitioner dated 8.9.2008, objecting to the compromise, cannot be upheld and is set aside. The petitioner would be fully entitled to contest the compromise petition as and when the same is taken up for consideration on merits. It is however clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion
