Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Mukesh, S/o. Babu Lal – Appellant
Versus
Ghanshyam, S/o. Shri Latoor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. By way of filing this instant petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short as 'CPC'), the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Weir, District Bharatpur (hereinafter to be referred as learned 'trial Court'), in Civil Suit No. 1/2025 titled as "Ghanshyam Vs. Mukesh and Ors.", whereby the application preferred by the present petitioners/defendant Nos.1,5,6,7 and 10 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC came to be rejected.
2. Briefly stated, the respondents-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit on 27.11.2024 seeking declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the compromise dated 17.07.1982 and the judgment and decree dated 10.09.1982 passed by Additional Collector, Bayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘Revenue Court’) in Revenue Suit No. 95/1982, be declared null and void and further declaration, that the gift deed dated 31.10.2022 be declared void.
3. The case set up in the plaint is that one Babulal had earlier instituted a revenue suit for declaration of khatedari rights and perpetual injunction against his brother Latoor (Father of the plaintiff-respondent) before the c
A separate suit to set aside a compromise decree is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC, and challenges to such decrees must be raised in the court that issued them.
(1) No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful.(2) Mere clever drafting would not permit plaintiff to make suit maintainable which o....
A suit challenging a compromise decree not challenged, but the compromise itself is called into question, would be barred by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. Additionally, a third party,....
A suit where a decree based on compromise is not challenged, but compromise itself is called into question, would also be barred by provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC.
Compromise decrees in partition suits involving minors without their inclusion are void and can be challenged based on coercion or lack of lawful procedure.
A party can appeal against a compromise decree to challenge its validity despite Section 96(3) CPC barring appeals against such decrees.
A party aggrieved by a compromise decree has a right to challenge the compromise decree by way of an appeal or to approach the same court which passed such decree by way of an appropriate application....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
