A stranger to a compromise decree cannot file an application in a suit or an appeal to challenge a compromise, but must file a separate suit for the purpose.

1. The applicants, who are strangers to the First Appeal seek, by this Civil Application, to set aside the consent order dated 15th October, 2009 passed therein. Respondents no.1 and 2 are the appellants and original plaintiffs. Respondents no.1 to 3 are the respondents to the appeal and the original defendants. The applicants hereinafter will be referred to as 'the applicants', respondents no.1 and 2 as 'the appellants' and the other respondents as 'the respondents'.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, one Mohammed Hanif Ahmedsaheb Karigar owned substantial properties at Solapur including final plot no. 1641 admeasuring 208.5 sq.mtrs with a bungalow standing thereon, known as “Ashiyana Bungalow” and an open piece of land admeasuring 4495 sq.mtrs at Gat No. 9/2/2B. Mohd. Hanif Karigar died on 20th April, 2004 leaving behind the respondents as his heirs. The appellants, the original plaintiffs are his widow and one daughter, Shamin. The other respondents-the original defendants are his other daughters, Parveen, Rahima and son-Nazir. The appellants filed Special Civil Suit No. 105 of 1990 against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the movable and immovable properties left behind by Mohd. Hanif Karigar. The respondents had filed counterclaim to the suit. The suit and the counter-claim came to be dismissed by the trial Court. The appellants on 30th June, 2000 filed the First Appeal herein, which came to be numbered in the year 2005 as First Appeal No. 21 of 2005. During this period, respondent no.2 by two registered documents called “Hiba Bill Iwas” dated 17th February, 2003 and 20th December, 2003 alienated his undivided share in the two properties in favour of the applicants and one more person. Within a fortnight thereafter, i.e. on 30th December, 2003 at the instance of the applicants and respondent no.2, the name of appellant no.1 came to be deleted from the revenue records and the name of the applicants added therein, as the owners of the two properties. The mutation of revenue records was challenged by respondent no.3, by filing application dated 5th February, 2004. The City Survey Officer, rejected the application by his order dated 8th March, 2004. There was also a complaint made by respondent no.3 to the Tahsildar. That complaint came to be rejected on 10th March, 2004. Then, respondents no.1 and 3 got a public notice issued in Daily Lokmat, claiming a right of pre-emption in respect of the two properties and thereafter filed Regular Civil suit No. 361 of 2004, on 23rd April, 2004, against the applicants, respondent no.2 and the wife of respondent no.2 to exercise their rights of pre-emption in respect of the two properties. The applicants have filed their written statement to the suit.

3. During the pendency of the suit itself, applicant no.1 obtained loan in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-from Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank by mortgaging the land at Gat No.9/2/2B to the extent of one-third share.

4. In April, 2009 respondent no.2 filed a criminal complaint against the applicants in relation to the two properties. The applicant and fourteen others, were arrested by the police and were in detention for some time. On 20th May, 2009 respondent no.2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 124 of 2009 against the applicants and the other co-donee for a declaration and permanent injunction relating to the two properties. He had applied for an interim reliefs against the applicants and the co-donee. That application was dismissed by the trial Court.

5. On 7th October, 2009 the appellants and the respondents executed an arbitration agreement referring the dispute in the present first appeal to the sole arbitration of Dr. Mohammed S. Razak, husband of respondent no.1. The Arbitrator passed his award on 14th October, 2009 of distribution of the properties, left by Mohd. Hanif Karigar amongst his heirs including the above-mentioned two properties. Under the Award, the land at Gat No.9/2/2B went to