Judgment

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.-The petitioners herein have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of order dated 17.10.2012 (for brevity ‘impugned order) passed by the court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu (for brevity ‘court below’) in case titled as “Vipan Aggarwal and ors. vs. Raman Gandotra and ors.”.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged in the petition, brief facts emerging from the petition are required to be outlined, hereunder:-

(I) A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction is stated to have been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein against defendants/respondents herein qua the land measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas covered under Khasra No. 694 situated at Village Delli Jammu. The defendant/respondent No. 1 herein is stated to have filed written statement.

(II) The application for interim relief accompanying the suit is stated to have been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 21.10.2005 and an appeal filed against the same is also stated to have been dismissed on 15.05.2008.

(III) The petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are stated to have constituted an attorney on 09.03.2010 for managing, looking after and disposing of the land in question on account of being Government employees.

(IV) In the month of May 2010, the defendant/respondent No. 1 herein is stated to have divulged to the said attorney of the petitioners that the suit stands compromised in terms of a compromise deed, where after, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein are stated to have enquired about the same from the counsel who is stated to have shown his complete ignorance about the said compromise.

(V) The plaintiffs/petitioners herein are stated to have engaged another counsel in the case and upon examination of the record state to have come to know that the suit stands disposed of on the strength of a compromise deed and consequently a judgment/decree passed on 13.09.2008.

(VI) An application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC is stated to have been filed by the petitioners before the court below after obtaining copies of the application for withdrawal of the suit, statements recorded in support thereof as also of the compromise deed. The said application is stated to have been filed inter alia on the grounds that the application moved for withdrawal of the suit filed on 26.07.2008 on the strength of the compromise dated 24.07.2008 has been without signatures of the learned Advocate and that the plaintiffs/petitioners herein neither executed any compromise nor appeared before the court below in support thereof and that the learned Advocate appearing on their behalf has shown complete ignorance about the same and that the defendant/respondent No. 1 herein has committed a fraud upon the plaintiffs/petitioners herein.

(VII) In the said application the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein came to be impleaded as non-applicants along with respondent No. 1 herein, in that, the respondent No. 1 herein is stated to have executed a sale deed qua the land in question in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein.

(VIII) The trial Court in terms of impugned order is stated to have dismissed the application filed by the petitioners herein under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC after summoning and inviting the objections from the non-applicants/respondents herein, holding the same besides ill-founded as also a blatant abuse of process of Court, imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the applicants/petitioners herein.

3. The impugned order is being questioned in the instant petition inter alia amongst others on the grounds that the impugned order passed by the court below is perverse and findings recorded thereof are based on no evidence, inasmuch as, that the court below failed to take into consideration the basic principles of law with regard to admissibility of the evidence and that the court below has based its findings upon the report of inquiry officer in the criminal proceedings having originated from a com