Back
JAVED IQBAL WANI
Mst. Raja – Appellant
Versus
Mst. Fazi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The Supervisory Jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution is being invoked by the petitioner seeking quashment of order dated 11.12.2015 (for short the impugned order) passed by the Court of Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag, (for short the trial Court) in case titled as “Mst. Raja Vs. Mst. Fazi and Others”.
2. The seminal facts which are relevant for present purpose and the circumstances in which it arises and stated in the instant petition are that the petitioner herein claimed to be successor in interest (daughter) of one Ahad Parray along with respondent 1 herein and mother of respondents 2 to 4 herein. The said Ahad Parray is stated to have left a landed property entitled to be inherited by his legal heirs named above.
3. It is being further stated that in the year 1970 the petitioner herein was a minor of the age of 12 years and the respondent 1 herein and mother of respondents 2 to 4 herein allegedly obtained a fraudulent and alleged decree from the Court of Munsiff Anantnag in a suit titled as”Mst. Hajra and anr. Vs. Mst. Raja” (in file no. 388) on the basis of a compromise, in order to deprive the petitioner of her shar
Compromise decree – Provisions of CPC are designated to facilitate justice as it is not a penal law to punish a person.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a stranger to a suit/lis is not entitled to seek setting aside of a compromise judgment and decree and cannot invoke supervisory jurisdiction ....
A party not involved in a compromise decree may challenge it if they do not claim rights through a party to that decree, as per Order 23 Rule 3-A.
Rejection of plaint – Bar contained under Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC shall not be applicable to a stranger to compromise decree challenging compromise decree provided he is not claiming any right throu....
A suit where a decree based on compromise is not challenged, but compromise itself is called into question, would also be barred by provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC.
(1) No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful.(2) Mere clever drafting would not permit plaintiff to make suit maintainable which o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
