A consent decree acts as a binding contract and operates as an estoppel. It can only be set aside if the party challenging it proves fraud or coercion before the original court. Revisional courts possess limited jurisdiction and cannot re-adjudicate factual findings properly determined by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present civil revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-VI, Ranchi whereby Civil Miscellaneous Case No.34 of 2023 (arising out of Original Suit No.18 of 2014) filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. It appears that Original Suit No.18 of 2014 filed by the opposite party Lakhi Devi (plaintiff) for partition of their ancestral properties jointly possessed by plaintiff and defendants and to carve out her one-fifth share and allot separate possession. The said partition suit was decreed on the basis of joint compromise between the parties. The joint compromise petition was purported to be filed by the plaintiff Smt. Lakhi Devi and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 (opposite party Nos.2 and 4 and petitioner herein) along with defendant No.4 Most. Bachan Devi (since deceased). In terms of compromise Pleader Commissioner was appointed for carving out separate Takhta as per the order passed in the said partition suit on 27.07.2015 and the Report of the Pleader Commissioner was also accepted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.03.2016, accordingly, direction was given to prepare final decree which was signed on 05.09.2016.

In view of final decree passed in the above partition suit, the plaintiff Lakhi Devi has filed Execution Case No.248 of 2016 which has been resisted by the petitioner. The petitioner filed Civil Appeal No.140 of 2019 against the final decree passed in said partition suit before Principal Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 19.11.2022. Against which the petitioner filed Second Appeal No.210 of 2022 before this High Court which was permitted to be withdrawn by terms of order dated 20.02.2023 with liberty to approach the same Court in which compromise was recorded and as such, Miscellaneous Case No.34 of 2023 has been filed which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2025 against which present revision petition has been filed.

3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record of the case along with impugned judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Member of Scheduled Caste and an illiterate woman. The plaintiff/opposite party No.1 taking undue advantage of her illiteracy fraudulently got her thumb impression on the compromise petition. Although, the contents of the said compromise petition were neither read over nor explained to her in Hindi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the above compromise decree on following grounds :-

(i) In the course of preparation of final decree, Pleader Commissioner appointed by the Court had served no notice upon the petitioner Mini Devi rather it is obvious from the receiving of summon issued by Pleader Commissioner that on behalf of petitioner and all other defendants, the notice was received by one Rajesh son of defendant No.2, which was never communicated to the petitioner.

(ii) As a matter of fact, Lakhi Devi (plaintiff), Pusan Devi and Kalo Devi (defendants) have already sold their share in Plot No.1411 in the year 2010 and purchasers were given possession over the respective purchased property, in spite of, possession of purchasers, fraudulently, they have been allotted share in the said plot also.

(iii) The report submitted by Pleader Commissioner also does not find thumb impression of the petitioner. The petitioner along with plaintiff and other defendants has