ORDER :

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 30.06.2015 passed in O.S.No.335/2011 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, whereby the trial Court allowed I.A. No. IV filed by respondents 1 and 2 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. The respondents having been served have chosen to remain unrepresented and they have not contes ted the petition.

3. The material on record indicates that it is not in dispute that the respondents 1 and 2 were the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit filed by them for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs.

4. A perusal of the plaint indicates that respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs have claimed 1/4th equal share in the 1/3rd share of their father who is arrayed as 3rd defendant in the said suit. During the pendency of the suit, respondents 1 and 2 moved the aforesaid application IA No.IV seeking amendment of the plaint. Though the said application was opposed by the petitioners herein, who were arrayed as defendants 2 to 5 in the suit, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the said application, aggrieved by which the petitioners are before this Court by way of present writ petition.

5. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the children of Chikkahanumaiah who was arrayed as defendant No.3 in the suit. It was also not in dispute that the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs claimed share in the suit schedule properties under their father-Chikkahanumaiah. Under these circumstances, the proposed amendment seeking to challenge the compromise decree as well as the relinquishment deed said to have been executed by Chikkahanumaiah in favour of the first defendant was not permissible under law in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of TRILOKI NATH SINGH VS. ANIRUDH SINGH (D) THR. L.R.S AND ORS., REPORTED IN AIR 2020 SC 2111.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials on record.

7. The material on record indicates that by way of the aforesaid application IA No. IV, respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs seek to assail the alleged relinquishment deed dated 18.04.1994 and subsequent compromise decree dated 20.07.2002 on the ground that they were minors and their interest was not safeguarded by their father at the time of entering into the compromise in the said suit. In this context it is relevant to state that the proposed amendment in the nature of adding prayer of declaration qua compromise decree is not maintainable in the light of Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC as held by the Apex Court in the case of TRILOKI NATH SINGH (Supra) wherein it is held as under :

19. Thus, after the amendment which has been introduced, neither any appeal against the order recording the compromise nor remedy by way of filing a suit is available in cases covered by Rule 3A of Order 23 CPC. As such, a right has been given under Rule 1A(2) of Order 43 to a party, who denies the compromise and invites order of the Court in that regard in terms of proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC while preferring an appeal against the decree. Section 96(3) CPC shall not be a bar to such an appeal, because it is applicable where the factum of compromise or agreement is not in dispute.

20. In the present case, the partition suit was filed in 1978 and after the decision of the trial Court, the matter went in first appeal and eventually, Second Appeal No. 495/86 before the High Court. During the pendency of first appeal being continuation of the suit as stated, one of the parties to the pending proceedings, namely, Sampatiya allegedly entered into a sale