The court established that a compromise deed is valid if entered voluntarily, and the Pension Act, 1871 does not apply in Sikkim, allowing the compromise to stand.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - Two questions arise for consideration in the present revision petition. An application for setting aside the compromise deed entered between the parties in Title Suit No. 12 of 2018 and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Civil Misc. Case No. 14 of 2020 was rejected. The revisionist seeks to assail the same under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The proviso to section 115 of the CPC prohibits this Court from varying or reversing any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. The revisionist submits that as the Pension Act, 1871 provided that the pension would be paid to the wife of the deceased person, the respondents who were not legally wedded wives would not be entitled to the same as such the compromised deed entered between the revisionist and the respondents was liable to be set aside as being barred by law. Thus, in the facts of the present case the two questions which arises are:

(i) Is the present revision petition maintainable under section 115 of the CPC?

(ii) Whether the Pension Act, 1871 barred the revisionist from entering into a compromise deed?

2. The revisionist seeks to assail the Order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Civil Misc. Case No.14 of 2020 rejecting the application filed by the revisionist under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with section 151 of the CPC holding that the compromise deed dated 19.12.2019 is not in contravention to the provisions of section 4 and section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871 and that the compromise deed is not void and unlawful. The revisionist also seeks the setting aside of the compromise decree passed in Title Suit Case No. 12 of 2018 as being unlawful.

3. In the year 2018 Title Suit case No. 12 of 2018 was filed by the respondent no.2 against the respondent no.1. In the said suit an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was filed by the respondent no.1 to implead the revisionist, which was allowed. The parties to the present revision petition claimed to be the wives of late Kumar Thapa. During the proceedings of the Title Suit the matter was referred to mediation vide Order dated 05.09.2019. The matter was amicably settled between the parties. A compromise deed dated 19.12.2019 was entered between them. The Title Suit was thereafter, disposed of by the learned Trial Judge on 27.02.2020 pursuant to which a decree was passed. The respondent no.1 thereafter, filed Civil Execution Case No. 10 of 2020. It was at this stage after receipt of summons from the executing court that the revisionist moved an application under the proviso of Order XXIII Rule 3 read with section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the compromise deed as being unlawful and barred by law. The revisionist therefore prayed that the compromise entered between her and the respondents as well as the decree and order dated 27.02.2020 be set aside and further the Title Suit may be restored to its stage prior to the compromise/settlement. By the impugned Order dated 13.04.2022 this application of the revisionist was rejected. The revisionist thereafter, filed the present revision petition seeking to invoke the powers of this Court under section 115 of the CPC.

4. Heard Mr. Tarun Choudhury, learned counsel for the revisionist. It is his case that the compromise deed dividing the pension between the parties is in violation of the Pension Act, 1871. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court acted beyond its jurisdiction in view of the specific bar of the power of the Civil Court to try and entertain any issue relating to pension as mandated in section 4 and 6 of the Pension Act, 1871. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the compromise deed was also void in view of section 12 of the Pension Act, 1