A compromise decree is binding on the parties to the suit and not on strangers, and a separate suit to challenge the compromise decree is not maintainable for strangers to the proceeding.

JUDGMENT

Vinay Joshi, J. - Heard finally by consent of both learned Counsels at the stage of admission.

2. The revision petitioner has claimed exception to the order dated 30.11.2021 passed in RCS No.245 of 2021 on Exh.20 by learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded, whereby the application for rejection of plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

3. The facts necessary to decide this revision petition in brief are that the revision petitioner was defendant No.2 in RCS No.245 of 2021. The said suit was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6 (plaintiffs) seeking relief of declaration of joint ownership and possession in respect of immovable property. Likewise declaration has also been sought that compromise decrees passed in RCS No.122 of 2019 and 157 of 2019 are void and not binding on plaintiffs. Besides that the relief of perpetual injunction has been claimed. The said suit was filed against petitioner (Prakash) and respondent No.7 Vishwanath. In said suit, petitioner Prakash has applied vide Exh.20 for rejection of plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. It was contended that compromise decree passed in RCS Nos.122 of 2019 and 157 of 2019 cannot be questioned by way of separate suit. Precisely it was contended that those decrees were passed in Lokadalat and therefore it cannot be questioned by filing separate suit but the remedy lies in filing writ petition. Moreover, it is contended that in view of specific bar created under Rule 3a to Order 23 of CPC, suit shall not lie to set aside decree passed by way of compromise.

4. The said application was resisted by original plaintiffs vide their reply. Having regard to the submissions and considering legal position the Trial Court held that there are no grounds for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC and accordingly rejected the application.

5. In order to understand controversy some background facts need reference. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred as per their status in RCS No.245 of 2021 in which the impugned order has been passed. Defendant No.1 Vishwanath and defendant No.2 Prakash (revision petitioner) were cousin brothers inter se. Prakash filed RCS No.157 of 2019 against Vishwanath seeking declaration of ownership, possession and injunction in respect of land bearing Gat No.123. Likewise Vishwanath filed RCS No.122 of 2019 against Prakash seeking declaration of ownership and possession in respect of land Gat No.122.

6. Vishwanath and Prakash entered into compromise and they have signed consent terms in both suits. Precisely in the suit filed by Prakash (RCS No.157/2019), it was agreed that Prakash is the owner and possessor of land bearing Gat No.123. accordingly consent terms were filed in Lokadalat on which suit was disposed in terms of settlement meaning thereby ownership and possession of Prakash over land Gat No.123 was declared. On the other hand, in another suit filed by Vishwanath (RCS No.122/2019) they have similarly entered into consent terms and accordingly suit was decreed in terms of settlement. In said suit ownership and possession of Vishwanath of land Gat No.122 was came to be declared. To simplify the matter, it can be said that two cousin brothers Prakash and Vishwanath filed suits against each other and by consent got declaration that Prakash is owner and possessor of land Gat No.123 whilst Vishwanath is owner and possessor of land Gat No.122. The settlement was arrived before panel of Lokadalat who in tern has passed award which is having deeming effect of decree of Civil Court in terms of Section 21 of the Legal Service authorities act, 1987.

7. In the wake of above position, existing suit bearing RCS No.245/2021 was came to be filed by brothers and sister of Vishwanath against Prakash and Vishwanath claiming certain relief. For the sake of convenience the reliefs claimed in the suit are reproduced here-in-below :-

'1] It be declare that the plaintiffs ar