Courts hold inherent power to recall judgments if obtained through fraud or concealed material facts; non-parties cannot challenge compromise decrees under CPC provisions.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Sardar Harjit Singh against order dated 31st May, 2024, passed in OMP No. 220 of 2023 filed in Civil Suit No 24 of 2018, whereby an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), preferred by respondent No.2 Sardar Guljit Singh Kochhar for setting aside judgment and decree dated 27th June, 2019 passed on the basis of compromise between appellant Sardar Harjit Singh Kochhar and respondent No.1 Sardar Manjeet Singh Kochhar in Civil Suit No. 24 of 2018, has been allowed by recalling the said judgment and decree by holding that the same has been obtained by concealing the material facts with regard to pendency of civil suit in Delhi High court.

2. It is also apt to record that after recalling the judgment and order, for the assessed value of suit as Rs.95 lacs on account of increase of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge, vide order dated 11th September, 2024, the suit has been directed to be sent to the District Judge, Shimla for its disposal as per law with direction to the parties, through their respective counsel, to appear before the Court of District Judge Shimla on 26th September, 2024.

3. Admittedly, parties in this appeal i.e. Sardar Harjit Singh Kochhar (plaintiff), Sardar Manjeet Singh Kochhar (defendant) and Sardar Guljit Singh Kochhar (third party to the suit) are real brothers being sons of late Sardar Manohar Singh Kochhar.

4. Defendant Manjeet Singh Kochhar has also filed a Civil Suit (OS) No. 2552 of 2014 titled as Manjeet Singh Kochhar vs. Harjit Singh Kochhar and another in the High Court of Delhi wherein Guljit Singh Kochhar is also party as defendant No.5. The said suit has been filed for partition of estate of late Manohar Singh Kochhar and his HUF property. Guljit Singh Kochhar has filed a Counter Claim No. 32 of 2015 in the said suit. Vide order dated 18th May, 2015, Delhi High Court has directed the parties not to create any third party right over the suit property.

5. After having knowledge about Gift Deed dated 19th March, 1986, alleged to have been executed by late Manohar Singh Kochhar in favour of plaintiff Harjit Singh Kochhar and defendant Manjeet Singh Kochhar, Guljit Singh Kochhar filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC bearing I.A. No. 21879 of 2015 for amendment of Counter Claim No. 32 of 2015 to challenge the purported Gift Deed dated 19th March, 1986 being null, void, nonest and not binding on him. It has been informed that the said application for amendment has been allowed by Delhi High Court.

6. In the year 2018, Civil Suit No. 24 of 2018 was filed in this High Court by Harjit Singh Kochhar against Manjeet Singh Kochhar for partition, separate possession and permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the property at Shimla with claim that their father late Manohar Singh Kochhar had executed a Gift Deed dated 19th March, 1986 duly registered with Sub Registrar, Shimla in favour of Harjit Singh and Manjeet Singh and thus both of them were owners in possession in equal shares of the suit property at Shimla. Despite the fact that Guljit Singh Kochhar is also son of Manohar Singh Kochhar, he was not arrayed as party. Plea of execution of Gift Deed in favour of Harjit Singh Kochhar and Manjeet Singh Kochhar was admitted in written statement but with denial of exclusive possession of plaintiff Harjit Singh upon the suit property.

7. During pendency of suit, on 14th August, 2018 a compromise was effected between the parties to the suit in Shimla i.e. Harjit Singh and Manjeet Singh, and preliminary decree for partition was passed