IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP. No.4585 of 2025

and CMP. Nos. 23257 & 23260 of 2025

Rev.Father Paul Moses

S/o.Paul Raj

Managing Trustee of

Rev Father Gethsemane Gospel Mission,

No.4/216, MGR Salai,

Palavakkam, Chennai – 600 041. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Mr.H.A.Easwara

2.Mr.G.Dhanasekaran ... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Alandur in I.A. No.73 of 2021 in

O.S. No.31 of 2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.Karthikeyan,

for K.M.Mrithun Jayan

For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Krishnan,

Senior Counsel for

Mr.V.Srikanth for R1

No appearance for R2

ORDER

The third party to the suit in O.S. No.403 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Alandur, is the revision petitioner. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Alandur in I.A. No.73 of 2021, in O.S. No.31 of 2019.

2.The fulcrum of the case of the revision petitioner is that the compromise between the parties is vitiated by fraud, collusion and violation of mandatory legal provisions and because of the compromise, the right and interest of the revision petitioner is being seriously prejudiced.

3. I have heard Mr.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel for the first respondent. Despite service of notice, the second respondent, who is the defendant in the suit in O.S. No.31 of 2019, has not entered appearance.

4. Mr.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, taking me through the plaint averments in O.S. No.31 of 2019 and also various other documents concerning the suit property would submit that the plaintiff did not even establish valid title to the suit property at his hands and that several legal proceedings have been initiated using the name of the dead person, who is the brother of the plaintiff, the first respondent herein. Mr.Karthikeyan would further state that even in the plaint as well as all the pleadings filed by the defendant in the suit, there is a clear reference to the fact that the revision petitioner was running a Church in the suit property.

5. The learned counsel would further state that high handedly, based on the compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat, the revision petitioner has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit property, with the aid of police force. The learned counsel would therefore state that fraud vitiates all acts and the petitioner ought to have been permitted to re-open the suit in O.S. No.31 of 2019. It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Karthikeyan, the revision petitioner has already filed O.S. No.310 of 2024, which is pending before the District Munsif Court, Sholinganallur. He would state that as long as the Lok Adalat award stands, the petitioner will not be in a position to effectively prosecute the suit and get relief.

6.The learned counsel also places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Srinivasappa and others Vs. M.Mallamma and others, reported in, (2022) 7 SCC 460, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a compromise decree recorded by Lok Adalat, in the absence of allegation of fraud cannot be interfered with and also the decision in Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) and others Vs. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj and others, reported in AIR 2020 Gujarat 12 Full Bench, where the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, after considering the entire gamut of case law on the field, held that an aggrieved party who is virtually and adversely affected by the decree passed by the Court on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties to the suit can certainly file an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court under Section 96(1) of CPC, as such a decree would not be a consent decree insofar as the third party appellant is concerned and the bar under Sectio