A decision based on compromise between third parties cannot bind non-participating parties, and the remedy for non-participating parties lies in filing a separate and independent suit challenging the compromise decree obtained by the opposing parties.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. This application under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 is directed against the order dated 2.2.2007 passed by the Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin in T.C.A. No. 1 of 2006 disposing of the appeal purportedly on compromise between the parties. The grievance of the Petitioners is that though they were parties in the suit, the compromise was arrived at without their knowledge before the appellate court. The case has a chequered and long history and its genesis can be traced back to 1979, but with no end in sight even at this stage.

2. It was in the year 1979 that the late Ka Ringhit Sangrin and others had instituted a title suit against the Petitioners and others, their predecessors-in-interest including the Respondent No. 1 before the Learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin over the land called "Langja" ('the suit land'). The suit was originally registered as T.S. No. 16(&) of 1979, which was subsequently re-numbered as T.S. No. 1(T) of 1996. The Plaintiffs claimed that the suit land is a private land whereas the Petitioners claimed otherwise contending that the suit land is a Raid or community land. It transpires that in the year 1998, the clan elder of Ka Ringhit, Sangrin, one Brikshon, Kharlyngdoh and the then Sirdar of Jyrngam, Sirdarship had effected a compromise between the rival parties together with the residents of five villages, namely, Langja, Ktiethawtar, Khyllew, Sangrin, Umthlu and Mawribah, village whereupon the Sirdar of Jyrngam, Sidarship, forwarded the compromise agreement bearing dated 22.4.1999 to the Learned Magistrate First Class-cum-Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Nongstoin, with a prayer to dispose of the suit in accordance therewith. The suit was eventually compromised by the Lok Adalat held on 7.12.1999. The decision of the Lok Adalat compromising the suit was, however, challenged before this Court by one of the parties in WP(C) No. 93(SH) of 2000 on the ground that the Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction to effect the compromise. Finding that the dispute was not referred to by the trial court nor was the same made on the joint application of the parties, which contravened the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, this Court by the order dated 7.5.2004 set aside the award of the Lok Adalat and directed the Ld. Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Nongstoin, to try the suit at the stage in which the application for compromise had been filed. It may be noted that the Petitioner in that case had taken the specific plea that she was not a signatory to the compromise allegedly arrived at by those parties and the same had been done behind her back. It may be noted that this Court had also given liberty to the parties to make joint application afresh before the Ld. Assistant Deputy Commissioner to effect compromise in accordance with law. It would appear that the suit was restored to the file of the Ld. Assistant to D.C., Nongstoin and that following the death of the said Ka Ringhit Sangrin (the original Plaintiff), an application for substitution was made by the Respondent before the trial court, which was objected to by the Petitioners by filing their written objection on 8.6.2006. However, the learned Assistant to D.C. again by the order dated 8.6.2006 disposed of the suit on the basis of the same compromise agreement accepted by the Lok Adalat, which was set aside by this Court. It is not the allegation of the Petitioners that such course of action was taken by the trial court fully knowing well the existence of the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by this Court. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal, being T.C.A. No. 1 of 2006, before the Ld. Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nongstoin. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondents, on 22.12.2006, without the knowledge of