' A short reference to the circumstances attending on this constitutional petition under Article 199 should suffice to dispose of the single point falling for decision in this case which turns on the question whether or not the Court is required to hold an enquiry into the assertion that the dispute between the parties had been settled through a mutual agreement which was denied by one of the parties to the proceedings.
' The material facts are that learned Rent Controller had on the application (Annexure A) by the respondent (1) ordered eviction of the petitioners from the shop/go down in question upholding the claim of the respondent that he required bona fide the premises in question for the use of his sons (Annexure B). The petitioners went to appeal to challenge the order of learned Rent Controller which came up for bearing before an Additional District Judge. Hearing of the appeal was adjourned on a few dates as the parties were negotiating a compromise (Annexure C). On 5-6- 1980 the petitioners made an application before learned Additional District Judge that there had been a compromise between the parties on 15-7-1978 according to which rent of the premises was increased from Rs, 80 to Rs, 125 per month and the respondent had agreed to withdraw the proceedings against the petitioners (Annexure K). Simultaneously, the petitioners also applied for permission to produce evidence to prove the compromise which the respondent had denied (Annexure L). It may also be stated here that after a couple of weeks viz. On 19-6-1980 the respondent had filed a suit through his son for a declaration that the agreement of compromise dated 15-7-1978 and the receipt for payment of rent at the enhanced rent of Rs, 125 said to have been executed by the respondent were forged documents. The plaint also averred that the respondent was a person of unsound mind and was suffering from mental disease for the last more than three and a half years (Annexure M). This application by the petitioner for permission to examine evidence to prove compromise between the parties and disposal of appeal in terms of compromise was rejected by learned Additional District Judge with the view that the respondent does not admit compromise nor payment of rent at the enhanced rate.. Compromise between the parties outside the Court was of no consequence. The alleged compromise between the parties could avail of the petitioners if affirmed by the respondent through a statement in Court. The application for disposal of appeal in accordance with the compromise was filed after about two years of the alleged agreement with the respondent. Proceedings were adjourned on several dates but it was never hinted at by the petitioners that the parties had reached a compromise. The appeal was dismissed on merits and order of learned Controller was affirmed.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent disputed competency of the writ petition for the reason that under subsection (7) of section 15 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance order of learned Rent Controller subject to the result of appeal if any could not be called in question in any Court of law including the High Court by suit, appeal or otherwise. Emphasis was laid on the word "or otherwise" in advancing the contention that the said provisions were all embracing and of very wide import, and constituted a complete bar against any proceedings whatever in the High Court to call in of learned Controller including proceedings in writ jurisdiction. The contention does not merit a serious notice or detailed discussion. The power granted by the Constitution can be taken away only by amendment of the Constitution. The finality conferred on the decisions of Tribunal/ authorities of inferior jurisdiction cannot be construed to take away or abridge extraordinary jurisdiction of high prerogative of High Court under Article 199. High Court can interfere with findings of Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction within the limits outlined in the said Article.
' Merits of the case do not detain us much longer. The question whether or not there had been a compromise between the parties which the respondent did not admit had to be decided after a regular enquiry. The view of learned Additional District Judge that the agreement of compromise outside the Court did not avail of the party relying on the compromise as the other side had not affirmed it in Court was highly erroneous in law. Rule 3 of Order XXIII, Civil Procedure Code lays down that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit had been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise the Court shall order such agreement or compromise to be recorded and shall pass decree in accordance therewith so far it relates to the suit. The words "where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court" require that the Court must find whenever there is the dispute between the parties whether the agreement or compromise has been arrived at or not. The Court has to decide the matter by taking evidence in the usual way or upon affidavits, if possible, in the circumstances of the case. The fact that the respondent did not admit the agreement in Court did not justify summary disposal of the application made by the petitioner for adducing evidence to establish the compromise. Reference in this behalf be made to the case Ranjas Marwari and others v. Barumi Mathon and others (1) it was held in that case that where a compromise is filed in Court but repudiated by some of the parties to it, the Court shall hold an enquiry under Order XXIII, rule 3. The inferences with the learned Additional District Judge had deduced from the circumstances having a bearing on the factum of compromise, that the respondent had earlier declined the offer for enhancement of Rs, 200 per month, that he could not have agreed to comparatively much lower rent of Rs, 125 particularly, when he had the decision of the Controller in his favour and that the application was filed by the petitioners after about two years of the agreement for compromise could have been validly considered for proper appreciation of evidence to be adduced by the petitioneRs, The order of learned District Judge rejecting summarily the application for an enquiry that the dispute between the parties had been settled through a compromise which the respondent had denied foreclosing the question raised by the petitioners merely on the inferences indicated above and proceeding to decide the appeal on merits suffers from non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in him in law and warranted interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) AIR 1928 Pat. 108 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' The petition is allowed with no order for costs and order of learned Additional District Judge is set aside. The case is remanded to learned District Judge, Lahore for enquiry by himself whether the respondent had entered into a lawful agreement with the petitioners to withdraw the proceedings for ejectment against the petitioners which had led to the appeal in consideration of increase in the rent from Rs, 80 to Rs, 125 per month. Parties to appear before him on 28th instant for fixation of a date of enquiry not exceeding one week. Needless to add, that in case the petitioners fail to establish compromise with them by the respondent, the appeal shall be heard afresh from decision on merits. Learned District Judge shall endeavor to dispose of the appeal within for weeks as the case which had given rise to the instant petitiion was lodged in January, 1972.