Arun Kumar Jha, J. –

In C.Misc. Jurisdiction No. 382 of 2018

Heard learned senior counsels for the petitioner as well as substituted respondent no. 5 set. Though other respondents have also appeared in the case, but there is no representation today on their behalf. However, considering the long pendency of the matter it has been taken up for disposal along with Civil Misc. No. 1825 of 2017.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 32 of 1946, whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Judge allowed the petition dated 03.03.2016 filed by defendant no. 9 under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’)

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Title Suit No. 32 of 1946 was disposed of in terms of compromise vide order dated 24.02.1951 and a compromise decree was prepared. The compromise petition of the parties was made part of a decree, which was sealed and signed on 24.02.1951. It appears that on the basis of the compromise decree, parties to the suit came into respective possession of their land as allotted to them. However, Khata No. 78, Plot No. 632, Area 2 Katha 10 dhurs was allotted to the defendant no. 11, namely, Kaushal Kishore Narayan, who died unmarried and the said property along with other properties came in share of his two brothers, namely Prakash Prasad Singh, (defendant no. 12) and Ashok Prasad Singh, (defendant no. 14). But the respondent nos. 3 & 4 who are brother and sister-in-law of Kaushal Kishore Narayan executed a registered sale deed dated 16.03.2009 in favour of the petitioner and handed over the possession to the petitioner. Cousin of Plaintiff No. 2 of Title Suit No. 32 of 1946 filed Title Suit No. 169 of 1913 against the aforementioned sale deed on the ground that the vendors of the petitioner have no right to execute the sale deed. He claimed that he got the land by way of gift deed. While Title Suit No. 169 of 2013 was pending, original respondent no. 5/original defendant no. 9 filed a petition dated 03.03.2016, under Section 152 read with section 151 of the Code praying therein to amend the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 32 of 1946 and strike out plot no. 632 from Schedule 5(E).The said petition was allowed vide order dated 05.04.2016 which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Mr. Raghib Ahasan, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order of the learned trial court is patently illegal and passed without following the established norms of law. The learned trial court has not even bothered to take note of the fact that the petition dated 03.03.2016, was neither verified not affidavitted. Even no vakalatnama has been filed by the parties. In complete violation of principles of natural justice, without issuing notice to the petitioner or all the parties to the suit, the order impugned was passed. The learned trial court did not take into account accrual of interest in favour of the petitioner, who was not put to any notice. Admittedly the vendors of the petitioner have sold entire land of Plot No. 632 which was allotted to them in compromise decree and as such this petitioner has stepped into the shoes of his vendors and he has every right to defend his case in accordance with law.

5. The petitioner came to know about the impugned order only when the plaintiff of title suit no. 169 of 2013 filed a petition for amendment on 02.06.2017 on the basis of order dated 05.04.2016 and the said petition was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 01.08.2017. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to contest the petition filed for correction in the compromise decree and allowing the amendment in Title Suit No. 169 of 2013 on the basis of amendment made in the compromise decree of Title Suit No. 32 of 1946 will be highly prejudicial t