by party, whether orally or in writing. This could again be done as the language of Section reads at any stage of the suit either on the application of a party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of dispute between the parties. In this case, therefore, when the Court was recording a statement of the defendant that he would be willing to pay `7,15,000/- to the plaintiff to stave off his claim for specific performance and if the amount was not paid in a particular time, the suit could be decreed was completely a different situation than what situation Order 23 Rule 3 CPC deals with and in respect of which the above decisions have come about. In my view, if the Court had recorded a statement of a party and proceeds to render a judgment of the basis of such a statement, he cannot be permitted to resile from such a statement. The Court which has passed the order impugned has referred to how after the first plaintiff’s witnesses were examined and after the defendant side began, the Court itself endeavored to secure a meaningful adjustment of right of parties. It allowed for counsel to negotiate between themselves. There is a reference about mutual persuasion of one to another for endeavouring to secure settlement. In these days of high pendency, it is endeavour of every Court to see that lasting or enduring resolution of dispute is brought through a settlement. If the Court had allowed for an active participation to see that a
