ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. his revision petition has been filed against the order dated 3.12.2018 passed by the Ninth Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur (CG)in MJC (unregistered), by which, the Court below has rejected an application under Section 152 read with Sections 153 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modification of the compromise decree dated 13.2.2018 passed in Civil Suit No.245-A/2017, on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Hence, this revision.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Civil Suit No.245-A/2017 was filed by non-applicants 1, 2 & 3 against the applicants and non-applicant No.4 for declaration that the suit property is in their exclusive ownership and for permanent injunction. The plaint was filed on 7.9.2017 and the suit was listed on 9.3.2018 for filing of the written statement/issues. Meanwhile, an urgent hearing application as also an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC along with the annexures were filed on 13.2.2018. On the said date, applicant No.1 was in custody and his bail application was pending before the High Court. Applicant No.1 was brought to the concerned court from jail in another Arbitration Case scheduled in the Court of District Judge on 13.2.2018. Applicant No.2 was also not in Raipur on 13.2.2018 as he was in Bilaspur for hearing of his father's bail petition listed before the High Court. However, applicant No.2 reached Raipur in the late evening and he was directly called in the Civil Court. Applicant No.1 was produced at about 4:00 p.m. on 13.2.2018 before the Court. The applicants were assured and allured that the non-applicants/plaintiffs are willing to settle the family dispute and further, if the dispute ends , applicant No.1 will also be released from custody. Hence, the applicants had no choice but to sign such application as it was a question of life and death for applicant No.1. On the same day, plaintiffs Gajraj Pagariya and Smt. Ugam Devi and defendant/applicant No.1 Sushil Chandra Pagariya were examined and the compromise decree was passed on 13.2.2018 itself.

4. The criminal case against applicant No.1 finally came to an end on 6.7.2018 and thereafter, the applicants started scrutinising the details of the properties contained in the compromise application. The following major illegalities were found in the compromise application :

(i) One property situated at Vile Parle , Mumbai was originally in the name of a Company i.e. Shreyansh Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and as per the earlier family settlement, it was agreed that this property would be sold and its sale proceeds would be used in discharging the debts of the family. After passing of the compromise decree on 13.2.2018, Arbitration Case No.29/17 was settled in the Lok Adalat, in which, a compromise decree was passed on 22.4.2018 in the Court of District Judge, Raipur.

(ii) In the compromise application dated 13.2.2018, many properties were illegally put in the share of the plaintiffs/non-applicants, which were not even in the names of the family members and were recorded in the names of various others. Neither the consent of such owners was obtained nor their respective signatures were taken on the compromise application. Therefore, the applicants were given in share such properties which could not even be parted with in the compromise application.

5. For such properties, the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, (Benami Prohibition), Raipur has issued an order of provisional attachment under the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 on 27.2.2019. When such major irregularities came to the notice of the applicants, they have moved an application for modification of the compromise decree on 1.9.2018, which was dismissed by the impugned order.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Indisputably, the matter was settled between the parties on the basis of an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC and thereby, a