( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Application which is instituted under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 10/12/1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Jamnagar below Exh. 1 in Civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 1993 by which the application submitted by the petitioners as third Party seeking leave to file an appeal against consent decree dated 18/11/1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Jamnagar in Regular civil Suit No. 740 of 1986, is rejected.

( 2 ) THERE is a plot of land admeasuring about 4 Acres 22 Gunthas forming part of Revenue Surevey No. 1488 situate within the limits of Jamnagar City. The said land was originally owned and possessed by Late Maharaja Shri Indravijaysinhji dilawarsinhji Jadeja and others. Out of the said land, land admeasuring about one acre was donated to one Dolatram Mulshanker Dave by gift deed dated 16/11/1963. After the death of Shri Indravijaysinhji, the opponent Nos. 6 and 7 herein became the owners of the said land as legal heirs of deceased Indravijaysinhji Jadeja. There was a dispute regarding legality of the gift deed dated 16/11/1963. The opponent Nos. 1 to 5 as heirs and legal representatives of Dolatram Mulshanker dave instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 740 of 1986 in the Court of learned Civil judge (S. D.), Jamnagar against the opponent Nos. 6 and 7 for declaration and injunction.

( 3 ) IT is evident that Late Maharaja Shri Indravijaysinhji had executed an agreement to sell the land owned by him on 10/07/1980 in favour of the petitioners and the price fixed was Rs. 25. 00 per sq. ft. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had paid an amount of Rs. 81,000. 00 by way of earnest money to the vendor at the time of execution of the agreement for sale.

( 4 ) IN Regular Civil Suit No. 740 of 1986 the parties thereto submitted a compromise purshis Exh. 68 dated 1/11/1993. The learned Judge passed an order on 3/11/1993 to record the compromise. Thereafter on 5/11/1993, the original plaintiffs, i. e. , opponent Nos. 1 to 5 herein submitted an application requesting the Court to pass a decree in terms of compromise. The learned Judge of the trial Court by an order dated 6/11/1993 gave direction to draw the decree in terms of the compromise and pursuant to that direction, the consent decree was drawn on 18/11/1993.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they were not parties to Regular Civil suit No. 740 of 1986 and the consent decree passed in the said suit adversely affects their rights and interest in the suit land. The petitioners have contended that initially the opponent Nos. 6 and 7 who were original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 740 of 1986 had contested the case and challenged the gift deed dated 16/11/1963, but thereafter the said opponents had conspired with the plaintiffs of regular Civil Suit No. 740 of 1986 and had compromised the suit by submitting purshis Exh. 68 dated 1/11/1993. After pointing out that the proceedings under Sec. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are pending before the Government, the petitioners contended that with a view to defeating the rights of the petitioners, in collusion, consent decree has been obtained by the parties to Regular Civil Suit No. 740 of 1986. In the premises, the petitioners submitted civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 199 3/11/1993 before the District court, Jamnagar seeking permission of the appellate Court to file an appeal against the consent decree dated 18/11/1993.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, learned District Judge, jamnagar came to the conclusion that though Regular Civil Suit No. 740 of 1986 was filed by the opponent No. 1 to 5 against the opponent Nos. 6 and 7 in the year 1986, the petitioners had not taken steps to intervene in the said proceedings. After noting that the proceedings are pending before the Government under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, lea