IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 904 of 2018 HAKAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS RAGHUVIR THAKUR AND OTHERS Versus GAPPU AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Nitin Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri M.R. Choudhary Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed against the order dated 21.06.2016 whereby the trial court has disposed of the suit in terms of the compromise.

2. A suit was filed by three plaintiffs and the predecessor of the petitioner namely Hakam Singh was plaintiff No. 3. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise took place between the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 on one side and the defendants No. 1 and 2 on the other side, compromise application was presented before the trial court on 24.08.2012. Evidence on the compromise application was taken and after recording of compromise the trial court rejected the compromise vide order Annexure P/7 dated 12.08.2014 on the ground that since other defendants are objecting to the compromise, therefore, compromise cannot be accepted.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiff No. 3 who was ancestor of the present petition expired on 28.10.2015 and intimation of his death was given by the defendants counsel before the trial court on 19.10.2016 but no application for substitution of L.Rs. was filed and the case was next listed on 21.06.2016 and by that date the period of 150 days from the death had been elapsed and even more than 90 days from the date of intimation before the trial court had elapsed and therefore, the suit to the extent of plaintiff No. 3 had abated.

4. The trial court on 21.06.2016 without referring to the terms of the compromise has simpliciter mentioned that counsel for rival parties have contended that there has been a compromise and the matter be disposed of. The Court simply disposed of the suit without even mentioning the terms of compromise, only noting that there has been compromise and in terms of compromise the matter stands disposed of.

5. Now the anxiety of the petitioner who are successors of the plaintiff No. 3, is that though the order of the trial court does not mention the terms of compromise, but the compromise application would binds their rights also.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, such compromise would not bind the petitioners because firstly the ancestor of the petitioners was not party to the compromise and even on the date when the suit was disposed of in terms of compromise i.e. on 21.06.2016, the suit to the extent of plaintiff No. 3 who was ancestor of the present petitioners, had already abated and despite intimation being given by defendants counsel, no application under order 22 Rule 3 read with 22 rule 9 of CPC had been filed before the trial Court.

7. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the compromise would not bind the legal heirs of the plaintiff No. 3 to whose extent the suit has already abated.

8. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of observing that the petitioners who are the successors of the deceased plaintiff No. 3 would be at liberty to take recourse of such legal remedy as available to them in their character as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No. 3. While taking recourse to such legal remedies, the impugned order dated 21.06.2016 and the compromise would not come in the way of the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE