The court affirmed the right to appeal against compromise decrees under Order 43 Rule 1A, emphasizing substantive justice over procedural missteps.

ORDER The Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 06-05-2024 passed by Principal District Judge, Ashoknagar in unregistered M.A. of 2024, by which appeal filed by applicants under Order 23 Rule 1(a) of CPC has been rejected on the ground that applicants have a remedy of assailing the compromise decree by filing a writ petition before the High Court.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present Civil Revision, in short, are that respondents - Nepal Singh and Rajesh filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was initially filed against the State of M.P. only. It was the case of plaintiffs/respondents that they had purchased 0.220 hectares of land out of total 4.308 hectares of Survey No. 154/1 by a registered sale deed dated 20-06-2007 from Kok Singh. The land in dispute was the ancestral property of Kok Singh. It is submitted that with the passage of time, Khasra numbers have changed, and the neighboring agricultural / farmers may create nuisance. Therefore, it became necessary to file a suit for declaration of title of Signature Not Verified plaintiffs over 0.220 hectares of land forming part of Survey No. 154/1, situated in Village Isagarh, Tahsil Isagarh, District Ashoknagar.

3. From the order sheets of the trial court, it is clear that on 19-03-2024, suit was filed. Notices were issued, and case was fixed for 21-03-2024. On 21-03- 2024, counsel for the State filed his Vakalatanama, and the case was fixed for filing of written statement on 22-03-2024. On 22-03-2024, the State Government was proceeded ex parte. However, on the very same day, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint as well as for impleading Kok Singh as defendant. On the very same day, said application was allowed. Later on, Kok Singh appeared on his own, and on the very same day, filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, and on 23-03-2024 a compromise decree was passed. In nutshell, the compromise decree was passed within a period of four days from the date of institution of the civil suit.

4. Being aggrieved by the compromise decree passed by the court below, applicants preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of CPC. By impugned order dated 06-05-2024, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable with an observation that applicants have a remedy of assailing the compromise decree by filing a writ petition before the High Court.

5. Challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that it is true that the appeal was filed under incorrect provision of law, and instead of filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A CPC, miscellaneous appeal was filed under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC. It is submitted that it was a typographical error. It is submitted that under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC, appeal was maintainable as held by Supreme Court in the case of Vipan Aggarwal and another vs. Raman Gandotra and others, decided on 29-04-2022 in Civil Signature Not Verified Appeal No. 3492 of 2022. Thus, it is submitted that the miscellaneous appeal filed by applicants before the Appellate Court was maintainable.

6. Per contra, the Civil Revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. It is submitted that in the case of Vipan Aggarwal (supra), an application was filed by the appellant before the trial court, and only when the said application was rejected, appeal was filed. In the present case, no application was filed by applicants before the trial court. Therefore, the appeal has been rightly rejected.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Vipan Aggarwal (supra) has held as under:

“This Court in a judgment reported in ‘ Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi (Smt.) (Through LRS.) & Anr.’ (1993) 1