The trial judge exceeded jurisdiction by modifying an order without a proper application, violating the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for recall of an order dated July 21, 2025.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant, who was one of the proforma opposite parties in the revisional application, was not served properly, which is borne out by the concerned postal track report annexed to the affidavit-of-service which had been filed on the relevant date by the revisionist petitioner, which indicates that, insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the item was delivered to the sender, clearly indicating that the service was not effected on the present applicant.

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the Court proceeded on the premise that good service had been effected on all the opposite parties and had taken up the matter whereas the present applicant, being a proforma opposite party to the revisional application, was not served properly.

4. Accordingly, there is merit in the application.

5. Hence, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed on contest, thereby recalling the order dated July 21, 2025.

6. There will be no order as to costs.

Re: CO 13 of 2025

7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the revisionist petitioner afresh on the merits of the revisional application.

8. By the order impugned in the revisional application, while taking up an application, filed purportedly under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure , the Trial Court moulded the relief sought therein and, while turning down the application itself, in effect varied a previous order of status quo passed in the suit.

9. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge clearly recorded that in the compromise petition, the learned Trial Judge found admission of the parties thereof with regard to ownership over portions of the suit land. In Clause IV of the terms of compromise, it was inter alia mentioned that a portion of transfer purportedly effected through the impugned deed (impugned in the suit) was valid and a portion thereof was invalid. The learned Trial Judge recorded that such declaration touches the interest of the other parties to the suit and the court cannot decree the suit on compromise inter alia on such terms.

10. The learned Trial Judge was perfectly justified up to this extent, since, unless all parties to a suit are parties to the compromise petition, no compromise decree can be passed. However, the learned Trial Judge went one step ahead and, going beyond the scope of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code, virtually modified the order of status quo which had previously been granted, permitting a transfer to be effected between the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant no.5.

11. Such a modification was not only beyond the purview of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure , which was the entire premise of the prayer made before the learned Trial Judge in the application which was being decided by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order, the same traverses into the domain of Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides specific parameters, including change of circumstances and/or undue hardship, which are required to be established for the variation of an order of injunction/status quo.

12. Since no application or prayer for variation of the injunction order was made at all, it cannot be said that there was any application pending for adjudication before the Court on the date of the impugned order, which squarely comes within the ambit of Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

13. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant herein, who was a proforma opposite party in the revisional application, contends that if the impugned order is deemed to be one under Order XXIII Rule 3