The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to consent decree, fraud in compromise petitions, and the definition of decree under section 2(2) CPC, as well as the principles of locus standi and the right to file an appeal under section 96 CPC.

In both the writ petitions decree prepared on 12.05.2000 in Title Suit No.6 of 2000 and the judgment dated 29.06.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.12 of 2002, by which plea taken by the applicant-B.J. Aibara that order dated 29.04.2000 passed in Title Suit No.6 of 2000 has been obtained by playing fraud has been rejected, have been challenged.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4640 of 2013 M/s Elite Apartments Pvt. Ltd. claims that Mr. B.J. Aibara gifted half share in Holding no.9 & 10 in favour of Rita D’Souza and Sita M. Hiramanek [writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5194 of 2013] by two separate registered gift-deeds, both dated 09.05.2000 and it has purchased a piece of land having built up area 3000 sq.ft. in Holding No.9 & 10 from B.J. Aibara, Rita D’Souza, Sita M. Hiramanek and Phiroz Nariman Kutar through registered sale-deed dated 20.03.2002. This property is comprised under the compromise decree. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5194 of 2013 have claimed that they have purchased lease-hold rights for 1000 sq.ft. each in Holding No.9 & 10 from M/s Elite Apartments Pvt. Ltd. through two registered sale-deeds, both dated 10.04.2002. Title Suit No.6 of 2000 was instituted by Jay Mangal Kumar for a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 14.06.1999 executed by Mr. B.J. Aibara. The petitioners were not party in the suit. A compromise petition was filed in the suit on the basis of which the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 29.04.2000. This compromise decree was challenged by Mr. B.J. Aibara in Misc. Case No.12 of 2002 on the ground of fraud.

3. An objection to maintainability of the writ petition has been raised by the respondent. It is contended that against the decree prepared in Title Suit No.6 of 2000 and the judgment in Misc. Case No.12 of 2002, appeal shall lie under section 96 CPC.

4. Section 2(2) CPC defines decree to mean formal expression of an adjudication by which rights of the parties are conclusively determined with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. Section 96 CPC provides appeal from original decree. An appeal from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction shall lie under section 96 CPC, however, section 96(3) CPC provides that no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the court with the consent of the parties.

5. Stand taken by the petitioners is that the decree prepared in Title Suit No.6 of 2000 is a consent decree.

6. In Title Suit No.6 of 2000 parties entered into a compromise on the basis of which the suit was decreed and a decree was prepared which was sealed and signed on 12.05.2000. Challenging the judgment in Title Suit No.6 of 2000 the defendant-B.J. Aibara filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 2 r/w Rule 3-A CPC setting up a plea of fraud. Now, in the present writ petitions also the petitioners have sought a declaration that the decree prepared pursuant to final order dated 29.04.2000 passed in Title Suit No.6 of 2000 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and it was obtained by practicing fraud; the petitioners have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court for the same relief which was sought by Mr. B.J. Aibara in Misc. Case No.12 of 2002. For the same cause of action and seeking similar relief two separate proceedings, even at the instance of different persons, are not maintainable. On a plea that the compromise decree has been obtained by playing fraud Misc. Case No.12 of 2002 was initiated by Mr. B.J. Aibara through whom the petitioners are claiming right, title and interest over the property in question and while so, the petitioners cannot seek parallel remedy by filing these writ petitions.

7. Accordingly, these writ petitions seeking a declaration that decree dated 12.05.2000 has been obtained by playing fraud are held not maintainable.

8. On maintainability of the writ petition challenging judgment dated 29.06.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.12 of 2002, it is contended that judgment in the miscellaneous case is decr