A party cannot challenge a compromise decree through a separate suit due to the restrictions imposed by Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant IA is at the behest of opposite party No.1 seeking modification of the Court’s order dated 12^th May, 2025 in CMP No.437 of 2025 on the grounds stated therein.

2. In fact, the CMP was disposed of by this Court by order dated 12^th May, 2025 with a direction to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Balasore to proceed and to dispose of the suit in C.S. No.1692/1082 of 2018-(I) within the stipulated period, while modifying the order dated 21^st February, 2025 in F.A.O. No.17 of 2022 of the learned 3^rd Additional District Judge, Balasore directing the parties to maintain status quo also in respect of the Schedule-B property without further alienations by defendant Nos.3 to 9.

3. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Bose, learned counsel for opposite party No.1.

4. By this Court’s order dated 18^th October, 2023 in CMP No.1149 of 2023, re-hearing of the F.A.O was directed, whereafter, the learned Court below passed the impugned order vide Annexure-9 to the CMP dismissing the same confirming the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Balasore in I.A. No.380 of 2018. In the appeal, the maintainability of such a relief vis-à-vis compromise decree passed in an earlier suit i.e. C.S. No.946 of 2007-(I) was questioned and the learned Court below considering the same concluded that there should not be any injunction in respect of Schedule-B property, however, upheld the status quo order with respect to Schedule-C property. The aforesaid order in appeal dated 21^st February, 2025 at Annexure-9 was finally modified in the CMP, which is sought to be modified, at present.

5. The contention of Mr. Bose, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 is that the suit instituted by the petitioners is not maintainable because Schedule-B property was already involved in the previous suit, decree of which, cannot be a subject of challenge in the suit instituted and pending before the learned court below in view of Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC. The further submission is that injunction having been refused, the status quo vis-à-vis the parties directed by this Court, while disposing of the CMP in respect of Schedule-B property is certainly to prejudice opposite party No.1 and the purchasers and hence, the order dated 12^th May, 2025 passed therein is required to be modified.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners would submit that since the petitioners are having legitimate interest over and in respect of Schedule-B property besides the property under Schedule-C, in order to avoid alienations in future, this Court directed both the sides to maintain status quo, hence, therefore, the order dated 12^th May, 2025 in the CMP is perfectly justified and hence, need not be recalled.

7. The petitioners are seeking relief of partition, injunction and to declare the compromise decree in C.S. No.946 of 2007-(I) to be invalid, inoperative and not binding to them in respect of Schedule-B property. A copy of the plaint is at Annexure-1 and the same is gone through. In the suit, the petitioners moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as per Annexure-2 demanding interim order in respect of the Schedule-B and C properties morefully described in Annexure-1 and therein, a status quo order only in respect of the Schedule-C property was passed and it was challenged in F.A.O. No.17 of 2022 and though, partly modified by order dated 8^th September, 2023 but finally, stood confirmed vide Annexure-9 upon a rehearing and its disposal directed pursuant to the order in CMP No.1149 of 2023. As against the order in ap