The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can investigate the factum of consent in summary proceedings, but the reality of consent cannot be investigated. Additionally, inherent power under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked when integrated questions of facts are involved and evidence is required.

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

1. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi vide which the Court had framed the issues on the application under Section 151 CPC filed by respondent No.1 seeking the decree dated 05.01.1963 passed by the trial Court to be illegal, null and void being the result of fraud.

2. Civil Suit No.442 of 07.12.1962 titled Sawan Singh Vs. Maya Devi and another was filed for possession regarding land measuring 162 bighas, 11 biswas situated in village Malakpur, Tehsil Rajpura in the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rajpura. The said suit was decreed on the basis of compromise. Defendants therein had appeared before the Court and filed written statement, but subsequently, they entered into a compromise which was recorded. The suit was filed in respect of land measuring 162 bighas, 11 biswas of land left by Rulia. Sawan Singh filed the suit for possession of half share of the suit land and he also impleaded Bakhtawar Singh as one of the defendants. He alleged Maya Devi to be a tress-passer in the land. The suit was dismissed on the basis of compromise with regard to 17 bighas, 4 biswas of land being one half of 34 bighas, 8 biswas of land comprised in khata No.11 and khatoni No.21 as per jamabandi for the year 1958-59. With regard to remaining land, the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 Bakhtawar Singh were granted declaration that defendant No.1 Maya Devi shall not be able to alienate the same in any manner, although she was held entitled to her possession during her lifetime. The decree was passed on 05.01.1963 by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rajpura.

3. Thereafter, present Civil Suit No.84GT/14.03.1983 was filed by Maya Devi through LRs for possession in respect of 143 bighas, 8 biswas of land. The declaration was also sought that the condition imposed in Civil Court decree dated 05.01.1963 in respect of right of alienation of Maya Devi was null and void. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.1987. Maya Devi was found to have inherited the suit property from her husband in the year 1962 and since then, she became absolute owner of the property. Statement made by her in Court in the proceedings of earlier decree dated 05.01.1963 was held to be not binding upon her rights being against her status. She was declared to be absolute owner of the property. The suit was decreed to that extent leaving her other entitlements to be claimed from the Revenue Court.

4. Judgment and decree dated 01.08.1987 passed by the trial Court was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners before the Lower Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Patiala and the appeal was dismissed on 03.06.1988. Further RSA No.1741 of 1988 was filed by the petitioners and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2015. It was held by the High Court that remedy, if any, available to the plaintiffs was to move an application in the Civil Suit No.442 of 17.12.1962, rather to file a separate suit after a lapse of 22 years. Since the objection was taken by the defendants in the written statement in respect of maintainability of the suit and even issue was also framed to that effect, therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court under issue No.4 were found to be erroneous and it was held that the appellants in RSA No.1741 of 1988 cannot be prevented from raising such plea in view of ratio laid down in Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) through LR. Smt. Sadhna Rai Vs. Rajinder Singh, (2006) 3 RCR(Civ) 479 being a pure question of law. In view of above, the suit was held to be not maintainable in view of embargo of the provisions in terms of Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2015.

5. Against the aforesaid order, LRs of Maya Devi filed Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s).30206/2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2015, however, it was made clear that the dismissal of the suit filed