[2025:RJ-JD:41413]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 888/2025 Rawata Ram Saraswa S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 76 Years, R/o Gayatri Temple, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar.

----Appellant Versus Shri Kundiya Saraswat Samaj, Through General Secretary Ram Narayan Saraswa, Shri Kundiya Saraswat Samaj, Gayatri Temple, Sriganganagar.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

28/08/2025

1. The present Civil First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 35/2013. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court has attested the alleged compromise, decreed the suit in terms thereof, and placed the matter before the National Lok Adalat. The appellant has further challenged the subsequent order dated 25.11.2024, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the appellant’s application dated

11.11.2024 filed under Section 151 CPC.

2. Brifly stating the facts of the case are that the Respondent instituted a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of mesne profits against the Appellant in respect of a property situated at Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar, alleging that the Appellant was in occupation of two rooms, toilet, washroom and open area in the capacity of a licensee, that the license was cancelled by notice dated 25.10.2012, and that despite such cancellation, the Appellant refused to vacate.

2.1 The Appellant filed his written statement denying the allegations and contending inter alia that the suit for possession disguised as one for mandatory injunction was not maintainable; that he has been serving as a Ved-Pathi Brahmin and priest in the Gayatri temple since 1983 under an agreement which entitled him to offerings from the temple and residential accommodation within the premises; and that the license granted to him was irrevocable, having been coupled with an interest and further rendered irrevocable by permanent construction carried out by him in the premises. Evidence was led by both parties and the matter was fixed for final arguments, during which an alleged compromise dated 10.10.2024 was recorded by the Trial Court whereby the suit was decreed.

2.2 The Appellant contends that his signatures were obtained fraudulently on terms beyond the scope of the agreement, without his consent, and contrary to what was mutually agreed. Upon learning of the fraud, he filed an application under Section 151 CPC dated 11.11.2024, which came to be dismissed by order dated 25.11.2024. His writ petition challenging the said order was later withdrawn with liberty to avail appellate remedy. Consequently, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2024 as well as the order dated 25.11.2024, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Shri Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the impugned orders dated 10.10.2024 and 25.11.2024 are bad in law, having been passed without judicial application of mind and in violation of settled principles. He submitted that the alleged compromise was a result of fraud, prepared by clever drafting to deprive the appellant of his lawful rights. It was urged that under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, the Court was bound to record its satisfaction about the lawfulness of the compromise, which was not done. Learned counsel argued that once fraud was alleged, the Trial Court was duty bound to inquire into it rather than mechanically attesting the compromise. He further submitted that referring the matter to Lok Adalat on the basis of a disputed compromise was itself illegal. It was also contended that the application under Section 151 CPC was wrongly dismissed in haste, overlooking serious objections raised by the appellant. Thus, the impugned orders deserve to