Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. Heard all the parties on Interlocutory application No. 6685 of 2010, interlocutory application No. 10326 of 2010, I.A. No. 9920 of 2010, I.A. No. 9921 of 2010 and I.A. No. 10252 of 2010. All these five interlocutory applications were pressed by their respective counsels and are being disposed of by this common order as all of them are interlinked. Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel on behalf of the Appellant. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, the learned senior counsel on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. Mr. Raghiv Ahsan, learned senior counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 2. Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma on behalf of the interveners and likewise, Mr. V. Nath, the learned Counsel on behalf of another interveners.

2. For the purpose of disposal of these interlocutory applications, the brief facts are stated as hereunder.

3. The three Appellants, Gourishankar Pathak, Shivshanker Pathak and Prem Shanker Pathak have filed this First Appeal against the compromise final decree signed on 3-4-2010 by Sub-Judge-I, Patna in Title Suit No. 269 of 1996.

4. The said title (Partition) suit No. 269 of 1996 was filed by one of the partner, namely, Dr. Shankaranand Upadhaya with a prayer to dissolve the partnership and separate his share by affecting partition. In that case, the father of these Appellants, namely, Chunchun Pathak was Defendant No. 1. The Defendants appeared and thereafter on 26-8-1996, a joint compromise petition signed by all the parties to the suit was filed. Thereafter on 13-9-1996, the Court below accepted and recorded the compromise and the said partition suit No. 269 of 1996 was finally disposed of in terms of compromise and it was directed that the compromise application shall form part of the final decree. The father of the Appellants, namely, Chunchun Pathak who was Defendant No. 1 died on 24-10-1997, i.e., more than one year after the compromise judgment and decree dated 13-9-1996 passed in said title partition suit No. 269 of 1996.

5. Thereafter, these Appellants filed Misc. Case No. 3 of 1998 as provided under Proviso to Order 23, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. challenging the judgment and compromise decree dated 13-9-1996 and prayed for recall of the order dated 13-9-1996 and to set aside the compromise by declaring it to be unlawful, forged and fabricated and brought into existence by playing fraud both upon the Court and upon late Chunchun Pathak. The said misc. case was contested by the opposite parties of that misc. case. The parties adduced evidence oral as well as documentary and thereafter, the learned Court below after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the joint compromise petition dated 24-8-1996 bears the signature of Plaintiff and all Defendants including Chunchun Pathak and their respective learned Counsels. The learned Court below also found that late Chunchun Pathak executed Vakalatnama in favour of his learned Counsel, Sri. Ramanand Sahay. The learned Court below also found that during lifetime, Chunchun Pathak never challenged the compromise recorded by the Court and the misc. case has been filed by his 3 sons after the death of their father, late Chunchun Pathak. On 16-7-2008, the learned Court below in view of the above fact dismissed the misc. case No. 3 of 1998.

6. Against the said order dated 16-7-2008, the Appellants of this First Appeal filed Civil Revision No. 1238 of 2008. This Court by terms of order dated 1-2-2010 considering all aspects of the matter found that late Chunchun Pathak, Defendant No. l had appeared in partition suit No. 269 of 1996 and had singed compromise petition dated 24-8-1996 and till his death on 24-10-1997, he did not raise any objection to the compromise decree and then dismissed the Civil Revision application. The Appellants then filed Civil Review No. 98 of 2010 which too was dismissed on 16-7-2010. It may be mentioned here that this First Appeal has been filed by aforesaid 3 Appellants on 15-7-2010.