Back
2015 Supreme(Megh) 92
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
T NANDAKUMAR SINGH, J.
Jyoti Vaswani - Petitioner
Vs.
Reshma Vaswani & Ors. - Respondents
CR (P) No.30/2014
Decided On : 24.06.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner: Mr. K Paul, Adv.
For the respondents: Mr. B Bhattacharjee, Adv
Headnote:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in the trial court for recalling the compromise decree passed in a title suit. The trial court dismissed the application as not maintainable. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner filed a review petition in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner then filed the present revision petition in the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
In 1988, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a title suit for declaration and injunction restraining the defendant No.1/petitioner from disturbing her peaceful possession of a piece of land. The parties entered into a compromise and a compromise decree was passed in 1989. In 2001, the petitioner filed a suit challenging the compromise decree on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. The suit was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner filed an SLP in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner filed a review petition in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the application under Section 151 of the CPC was not maintainable as there was a specific provision in Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC to deal with an application for recall of a compromise decree. The High Court also held that the application was barred by limitation and estoppel.
Issues: 1. Whether the application under Section 151 of the CPC was maintainable? 2. Whether the application was barred by limitation and estoppel?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the application under Section 151 of the CPC was not maintainable as there was a specific provision in Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC to deal with an application for recall of a compromise decree. 2. The High Court also held that the application was barred by limitation and estoppel.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong dated 19.06.2014 for dismissing the application being Misc. Case No.31 (H) 2013 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’), which was filed 24 years after the passing of compromise decree dated 15.05.1989 in T.S. No.6 (H) 1988, for recalling the said compromise decree dated 15.05.1989 and also against the impugned order dated 20.10.2014 for dismissing the Review Petition No.1 (H) 2014 for reviewing the said impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2014 passed in Misc. Case No.31 (H) 2013.
2. Heard Mr. K Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. This case has a long chequered history. Sans detail, concise fact of the case, leading to the filing of the present revision petition is noted. In the year 1988, the respondent No.1/plaintiff Smti. Reshma Vaswani filed the suit i.e. T.S. No. 6 (H) 1988 for declaration and injunction. The respondent No.1/plaintiff is one of the owners of the undivided piece of land being Plot No.43 having a total area of 9800 Sq.ft., and the share of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is 1/4th (one fourth) which comes to 2450 Sq.ft. (more or less). The said piece of land is situated at Police Bazar and covered by Patta No.63 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong dated 20.01.1970. The respondent No.1/plaintiff acquired 1/4th (one fourth) share in the said land by virtue of Registered Deed of Gift dated 15.01.1988 executed by (L) Smti. Parbati Bai, wife of (L) Odermal Thadani, who was the owner of the 1/4th (one fourth) of the said piece of land and whose name was duly mutated in Plot No.43 of Patta No.63 under an order passed in Mutation Case No.28 of 1984 jointly with three others namely, Shri. Kishand Chand, Proforma Defendant No.2, Proforma Defendant No.3 Smti. Rukamani Bai, wife of (L) Lachman Das and Defendant No.1 Shri. Ashok Bhagwandas, Son of (L) Bhagwandas, Police Bazar, G.S. Road, Shillong. The relief (s) sought for in T.S. No.6 (H) 1988 are:
(i) a declaration that the defendant No.1 Ashok Bhagwandas has no legal right to disturb in any way the lawful possession of the plaintiff i.e. present respondent No.1 over the piece of land measuring approximately 2450 Sq.ft. (more or less) just by the side of G.S. Road, Police Bazar, Shillong and adjacent to R.C.C. building constructed by the proforma defendant No.2 i.e. Shri. Kishan Chand which is in occupation of the plaintiff/present respondent No.1 on the strength of her undivided 1/4th (one fourth) share in the Plot No.43 covered by Patta No.63;
(ii) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 Shri. Ashok Bhagwandas his labourers, workers, employees, mistries and agents from taking forcible possession or dismantling the structure raised by the plaintiff/present respondent No.1 thereon or entering into the said land or disturbing in any way the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/present respondent No.1 over the said piece of land or the structure standing thereon and;
(iii) full cost of the suit together with such other relief or reliefs as the plaintiff/present respondent No.1 is entitled to in law and equity.
4. During the pendency of the said title suit i.e. T.S. No. 6 (H) 1988, the defendant No.1 (Shri.Ashok Bhagwandas) gifted his share (i.e. 1/4) in the said piece of land to the present writ petitioner under the Gift Deed registered on 29.03.1989. The present petitioner filed an application for impleadment as a party on 08.05.1989 and vide order dated 08.05.1989, the present petitioner was allowed to be impleaded as one of the defendants in the said T.S. No. 6 (H) 1988. On 08.05.1989, a joint application for compromise was filed by the plaintiff/present respondent No.1, the defendants including the present petitioner in the said T.S. No.6 (H) 1988. The present petitioner as a defendant also signed the said app
