Petitioners, as non-parties to a compromise, retain the right to file a separate suit challenging its validity.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners, who were defendant Nos.13 and14 before the Trial Court, have preferred this petition challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadgi, on I.A. No.II filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, ‘the CPC’).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that respondent Nos.1 to 21 herein instituted a suit in O.S. No.3/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadgi, seeking declaration that the decree passed in O.S. No.259/2020 dated 19.12.2020 is not binding on them and is not executable.

5. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants, behind the back of the plaintiffs, entered into a compromise on 19.12.2020 in respect of the suit schedule properties, which is not binding on their share and is not executable.

6. It is further contended that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and are being cultivated jointly. Defendant No.13 instituted a suit in O.S.No.121/2003 seeking 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 26.12.2010, dismissed the suit. In the appeal, R.A.No.16/2010, the suit was decreed by judgment dated 02.01.2012, and the matter is presently pending for consideration in R.S.A. No.5555/2012.

7. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.121/2003, on the basis of the preliminary decree passed in R.A. No.16/2010, filed F.D.P. No.01/2012 for drawing up the final decree. It is further contended that defendants Nos.1 to 14, by suppressing the suit, appeal, and F.D.P. proceedings, instituted suit in O.S. No.259/2020 and entered into a compromise among themselves without arraying the proper and necessary parties. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit seeking a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on them.

8. Upon service of summons in the suit, the petitioners herein filed their written statement and also filed I.A. No.II under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs had neither properly strutted the prayer nor made a specific prayer, and that the suit was barred by law. The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

9. The respondents appeared through their counsel and filed objections, contending that respondent Nos.1 to 21 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.3/2021, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Byadgi, and the petitioners herein are defendant Nos.13 and 14 in the said suit. The suit has been filed seeking declaration that the compromise decree dated 19.12.2020 passed in O.S. No.259/2020 is not binding on them.

10. It is submitted that petitioner No.1, along with his mother, filed O.S. No.121/2003 for partition and separate possession of their 1/4^th share in the suit schedule properties. By judgment and decree dated 26.12.2010, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of petitioner No.1. Challenging the same, petitioner No.1 preferred R.A. No.16/2010, which was allowed, decreeing the suit and granting 1/4^th share in the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.3 in O.S. No.121/2003 filed R.S.A. No.5555/2012, which is still pending before this Court.

11. It is further submitted that, in the meantime, petitioner No.1 filed F.D.P. No.01/2012 for drawing up the final decree as per the judgment and decree in R.A.No.16/2