A party cannot challenge the validity of a compromise once executed, especially when affirmed in the presence of legal counsel.

ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by order dated 10.07.2021 (Annex.5) passed by National Lok Adalat, orders dated 12.07.2021 (Annex.6) and 19.09.2023 (Annex.10) passed by learned District Judge, Sirohi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are the siblings. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against respondents No.1, 2 and 3 before the learned District Judge Sirohi. In the plaint it was, inter-alia, averred that petitioner's father and mother expired on 07.04.2004 and 20.10.2020 respectively. After death of petitioner's parents, the defendants on the basis of forged Will got their names mutated in the revenue record. The petitioner/plaintiff thus filed the suit claiming his ¼ share in the suit land.

3. The suit was registered and summons were issued to the respondents/defendants. Thereafter, despite service of the summons, when no body appeared on behalf of respondents/defendants, an ad-interim injunction was passed on 02.01.2021 restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 from selling or transferring the suit property and they shall no alter the status of the land as also the revenue record.

4. In the meanwhile, the respondents initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner and one Parbat Singh, in which the petitioner was bailed out. Thereafter, it is alleged that the respondents approached to petitioner for settling the dispute and a compromise was executed. It is further alleged that the petitioner was ready and willing to enter into the compromise only to the extent of criminal case, however, while hatching conspiracy, the respondents/defendants secured his signatures on a compromise for settling criminal and civil case both.

5. In the petition, the petitioner has further alleged that on the basis of alleged compromise (Annex.4), the matter was referred to National Lok Adalat by the District Judge, Sirohi. The National Lok Adalat, thereafter on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties vide order dated 10.07.2021 recorded the proceedings that in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner/plaintiff does not want to pursue the suit against the respondents/defendants and the matter was directed to be placed before the regular court for passing appropriate order on 12.07.2021. Thereafter, on receipt of the case file from National Lok Adlaat, the learned District Judge, Sirohi in the light of compromise arrived at between the parties, dismissed the suit vide order dated 12.07.2021.

6. The petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by order dated 12.07.2021 initially preferred a first appeal before this Court being S.B. Civil First Appeal No.444/2021, however, the said appeal later on was dismissed as not pressed on 06.12.2021, inasmuch as the petitioner had already filed objections assailing the compromise before the District Judge.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 23, Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2021 passed by learned District Judge.

8. The learned District Judge, Sirohi thereafter vide its order dated 19.09.2023 proceeded to reject the said application, which order is also under challenge in this writ petition.

9. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while keeping the petitioner under the impression the compromise is being reduced into writing for settling the criminal case only, however, by playing fraud, the compromise was executed qua the civil suit filed by him. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after execution of the compromise, illegal construction has also been raised. It is submitted that taking advantage of petitioner's illiteracy the compromise has been executed and on the anvil of said compromise, the suit preferred by the petitioner for partition and permanent injunction has wrongly been rejected. Co