IMPORTANT POINT
Challenge to Compromise Decree – Only remedy is to file a writ petition and not a separate suit.

JUDGMENT

Heard Shri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for appellants and Shri. O. B. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present second appeal is filed challenging the order passed in R.A. No.14/2019 dated 30.11.2020 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, whereby the following order came to be passed:

“ORDER

By acting under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, the prayer made by the appellant in the present appeal is moulded and granted as below:

(a) The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.98/2016 dated 30.03.2019 is hereby set-aside.

(b) The final order dated 08.12.2015 decree and compromised final decree dated 20.01.2016 drawn in O.S. No.358/2015 i9s hereby set aside.

(c) The suit in O.S.No.98/2016 is remanded back before trial court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

(d) The suit in O.S.No.358/2015 is restored to its original file for determine for efficacious remedy, in accordance with law.

(e) The respective plaintiffs of O.S.No.98/2016 and O.S.No.358/2015 are hereby directed to implead all the alienees in their respective suit.

(f) The trial Court is hereby directed to consolidate the suits and determine the right, title and interest of the parties in accordance with law.

(g) The trial court is further directed to extend opportunity to the parties and determine the suits in accordance with law as expediently as possible.

Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC, is hereby disposed off.

The parties are hereby directed o bear their own cost and as such no order as to costs.

Draw decree accordingly.”

3. Facts in brief which are necessary for disposal of the present second appeal are as under:

A suit was filed in O.S. No.358/2015 which came to be disposed off by filing a compromise petition and final decree came to be passed before Lok Adalath.

Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No.98/2016 contending that the defendant by name Hanamant Bhimappa Bhajantri, in O.S. No.358/2015 was impersonated and a compromise decree came to be passed.

In the suit O.S.No.98/2016 the following is the prayer:

“Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree;

i) Declaring that, the Compromise Final Decree in O.S. No.358/2015 is a nullity and not binding on the plaintiff as it is obtained by playing fraud, in the interest of justice and equity.

ii) Declaring that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property Block No.184 of Itnal village to the extent of 15 Acres 16 Guntas, in the interest of justice and equity.

iii) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the award of costs, in the interest of justice and equity.”

That suit in O.S.No.98/2016 on contest came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff Hanamant Bhimappa Bhajantri filed first appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘first Appellate Court’, for brevity) in R.A.No.14/2019.

The first Appellate Court by a contexted judgment dated 30.11.2020 set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.98/2016 and decreed the suit as prayed for.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, defendants in O.S.No.98/2016 who were plaintiffs in O.S.No.358/2015 have preferred the present second appeal.

5. Shri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for appellants vehemently contended that the suit before the Civil Court challenging the compromise decree a separate suit before the Trial Court in O.S.No.98/2016 challenging the compromise decree passed in a Lok Adalath was not at all maintainable and the same has been rightly appreciated by the Trial Judge and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.98/2016.

6. He further contended that learned Judge in the first Appellate Court ignoring the bar contend in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1987’,