The principle of approbation and reprobation, reasonableness of parties' conduct, and the applicability of Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the appellate court), whereby civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioners against order dated 09.07.2013 passed by learned Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) has been dismissed.

2. It appears that a civil suit was filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondents, namely, Sh. Maya Ram Sharma before the court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. In the said suit, Late Maya Ram Sharma had sought a declaration to the effect that he is the legal owner of the land measuring 55 kanals falling in khasra Nos. 129, 131, 132, 111, 112, 113 and 114 situated at Village Dhoun Chak and land measuring 9 kanals and 11 marlas falling in khasra Nos. 590 situated at Village, Dohal, Tehsil Akhnoor. A further declaration was also sought that agreement dated 05.06.1999 executed between Maya Ram Sharma and petitioners herein, who happen to be the defendants in the said suit, is unenforceable conferring no right, title or interest upon the defendants. A permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and a khokha was also sought.

3. During pendency of the said suit, a compromise came to be entered into by the parties, in terms whereof, a compromise decree dated 09.07.2012 was passed. By virtue of aforesaid compromise decree, it was provided that the land measuring 13 kanlas and 10 marals falling in khasra Nos. 111, 112, 113 and 114 situated at village Dhoun Chak was settled to be retained by predecessor in interest of the respondents viz., Maya Ram Sharma and all other land, which was subject matter of the suit before the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu, was to be retained by the petitioners. This compromise decree came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of a separate suit before the court of learned Sub Judge (CJM), Jammu.

4. It was pleaded in the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the trial court that compromise was arrived at between them and the predecessor in interest of the respondents under coercion. Alongside the suit, plaintiff filed an application for grant of interim injunction. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application of the plaintiffs/petitioners seeking interim injunction against the defendants/predecessor-in-interest of the respondents vide its order dated 09.07.2013. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of an appeal before the court of learned Principal District Judge, Jammu. The same stands dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 09.09.2013.

5. The petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sub Judge (CJM), Jammu as upheld by the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu, on the grounds that the learned courts below have not considered the facts in their proper perspective. It has been submitted that a false case was registered against the petitioners by the predecessor in interest of the respondents at Police Station, Akhnoor and the learned trial court, while discussing this aspect of the matter, has erroneously observed that the registration of FIR is an incident post compromise, which is contrary to the facts. It has been further contended that it was only because of the said FIR that the petitioners were put under threat, as a result of which, they were pressurized to enter into the compromise. It has also been contended that the respondents have time and again been pressuring the petitioners so as to have more land and these aspects of the matter have been ignored by the courts below.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

7. As already stated, while narrating the facts of the case, in terms of the compromise decree dated 09.07.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu, the petitioners were given the possession and ownership o