The main legal point established in the judgment is that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful, as per the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC and the legal principles established in the cases of Sree Surya Developers & Promoters and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy.

ORDER :

This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by 6th Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.486, area 0.526 hectare, P.H.No.114, R.N.M. Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur. It was averred that in respect of the said land, compromise has taken place between the plaintiff and the defendants in Civil Suit No.182/2010 before the civil Judge, Aurangabad (Bihar) vide order dated 16.7.2010 which has attained finality for want of any challenge before the higher forum and as such, it is binding on the parties. In compliance of the said decree, the defendants have got their names mutated in respect of their share of the suit property.

As per decree of the year 2010, the petitioner as well as respondent No.1/plaintiff is having their portion of land which is situated at Raipur bearing Khasra No.486 which is divided in four parts, in which name of the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 is registered as Khasra No.486/3 and Khasra No.486/1 for which Raipur Development Authority has published advertisement informing that their land is being acquired under “Nagar Vikas Yojna No.4” and therefore, it is being allotted at some other place vide memo dated 3.7.2019 (Annexure P/6). Pursuant to the said memo, the petitioner on 4.7.2019 made the requisite payment of Rs.4,45,590/- vide Annexure P/7. The petitioner and the respondents filed an application before the Tehsildar, Raipur for mutation of properties in their names in which the Tehsildar ordered for dividing and registering the property in the ratio 32 1/2 decimal amongst all vide Annexure P/8. However, thereafter, the plaintiff filed the instant suit bearing No. 23A of 2020. Hence the petitioner/defendant No.3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on 24.3.2022 (Annexure P/4) stating that the suit property has been registered in the name of the defendants on the basis of compromise between the parties and therefore, the instant suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff filed reply to the above application and denied all the adverse averments vide Annexure P/5. The learned Court below vide impugned order dated 14.12.2022 considering the submission of both the parties, rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hence this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is perverse and liable to be set aside. No suit is maintainable after order of compromise being passed with the leave of the Court and as such, the instant suit is filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff only with a view to snatching the property belonging to the petitioner with ill-intention. In the compromise decree of the year 2010, it is specifically pleaded by all the parties that no party shall challenge the aforementioned compromise before any court of law as a particular term and the present suit has been filed only to harass the petitioner. The trial Court ought to have allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the plaint on the ground that in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC, no independent suit would be maintainable against the compromise decree.

It is further argued that the compromise decree is binding on respondent No.1 and therefore, the application under Order VII Rule 11 deserves to be allowed. The instant suit has been filed almost after a period of 10 years, for which the plaintiff must have put forth any plausible explanation but that has not been done. For all these reasons, the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 is liable to be set aside and consequently, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.

Reliance has been placed on decisions in the matter