IMPORTANT POINT
The rights of the applicants to claim a share in the suit properties were preserved in the Compromise Decree, and the inter se controversy of alleged fraud entailed different pleadings.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - I.A. 1757/2022 (u/O XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC by the Plaintiff No. 6 for setting aside Compromise Deed dated 25.01.2019)

I.A. 2420/2023 (u/O XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC by the Plaintiff Nos.5 & 4(vi) for setting aside Compromise Deed dated 25.01.2019)

1. The present Applications under Proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908") have been filed on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff No. 6/ Sh. Inder Pratap Singh Akoi and applicant/plaintiff No. 5/ Smt. Manju Mishra respectively, to set aside the Compromise Decree dated 25.01.2019 in the present Suit.

2. The plaintiffs, including the present applicants who are plaintiff No.6/Inder Pratap Singh Akoi in I.A. 1757/2022 and plaintiff No.5/ Smt. Manju Mishra in I.A. 2420/2022 respectively, had filed the Suit for Specific Performance with the following prayers: -

"(i) A decree for specific performance be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants 1-3, directing them to specifically perform the agreement dated 14.9.1990 and transfer possession of the property at Village Ghitorni (New Delhi) and Village Narsinghpur (Haryana) to the plaintiffs along with title by means of a sufficient instrument.

(ii) Such interim or other and further relief and in such form as the Court deems proper, be also granted.

(iii) A decree for recovery of Rupees ten lakhs for damages be passed and pendente lite damages/mesne profits @ Rupees three lakhs per month plus interest at bank rate be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against Defendants 1 to 3.

(iv) Such orders as the Court deems proper be also passed against Defendant No. 4 Punjab & Sind Bank. The Bank be directed to hand over the title deeds to the plaintiffs.

(v) Cost of the suit and such other and further relief as the Court deems proper be also awarded."

3. The matter was eventually compromised between the plaintiffs and defendants and the Application bearing I.A. No. 1452/1994 was filed by all the six plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C. for recording of the compromise. As the suit lingered on; another I.A. No. 10905/2010 was filed on behalf of plaintiff No. 1, 3 and Harish Ahuja under Order XXIII Rules 1 and 3 which again remained pending till 2019 when the present Suit for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell was decreed in terms of these two applications vide Order dated 25.01.2019.

4. At the time of passing the Compromise Decree on 25.01.2019, the plaintiff No. 6/Inder Pratap Singh Akoi opposed the Compromise Decree in terms of the pending application bearing No. I.A. 1452/1994 wherein he had asserted that the signatures of the plaintiff No. 6/Inder Pratap Singh had been forged on the Compromise Application. The plaintiff No.6 had preferred an Application Crl.M.A. 4769/2013 under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was pending. An Application bearing I.A. No. 7176/2013 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, 1908 for deletion of plaintiff No. 2/M/s Moti Board Industries Pvt. Ltd. filed by the plaintiff No. 6/Inder Pratap Singh Akoi, was also pending.

5. The contentions on behalf of the plaintiff No. 6/Inder Pratap Singh Akoi were recorded by the predecessor Judge of this Court and the application was disposed of with the observations that plaintiff No. 6/Inder Pratap Singh Akoi was agitating interests, adverse to plaintiff No. 1/Harimohan Sharma and plaintiff No. 3/Gajender Singh. The inter se disputes between the Agreement Purchasers cannot come in the way of Decree of Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell in terms of the I.A. No. 1452/1994 inter se the plaintiffs and the defendants and that the Decree passed in the present Suit was held not to affect any claims of plaintiff No. 6/Inder Pratap Singh Akoi against the co-plaintiffs. A Compromise Decree was thus, passed and the money deposited in the Court was directed to be released in terms of I.A. 1452/1994 and