IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

First Appeal No.25 of 2013

===========================================================

1. Md. Habib Ansari @ Habib Mian S/O Late Hurmat Miyan R/O Village -

Tendura, Ward No. 1, P.O. & P.S. Bikramganj, District - Rohtas ( Bihar )

2. Md. Rafique Ansari @ Rafique Mian S/O Late Hurmat Miyan R/O Village -

Tendura, Ward No. 1, P.O. & P.S. Bikramganj, District - Rohtas ( Bihar )

3. Md. Sadik Ansari S/O Late Hurmat Miyan R/O Village - Tendura, Ward No. 1,

P.O. & P.S. Bikramganj, District - Rohtas ( Bihar )

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. Khairu Nisa W/O Qurban Ansari R/O Village - Tendura, Ward No. 1, P.O. &

P.S. Bikramganj, District - Rohtas ( Bihar )

.... .... Respondent/s

===========================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. ABHISHEK

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

===========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR

SRIVASTAVA

CAV JUDGMENT

Date: 12. 09. 2018

This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment

dated 15.06.2007 passed by learned Sub-Ordinate Judge 1^st Rohtas,

Sasaram in Title Suit No. 32 of 2006, by which and whereunder he

rejected the plaint of the aforesaid Title Suit No. 32 of 2006 on the

ground that the aforesaid Title Suit No. 32 of 2006 was barred by

Section 21 and 22 of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 as well as

Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants (who is herein after referred

to as the plaintiffs) filed the above stated Title Suit No. 32 of 2006

against defendant/respondent (who is herein after referred to as the

defendant) for declaration of compromise dated 02.08.2005 and

Patna High Court FA No.25 of 2013 dt. 12.09.2018

2/10

award of Lok Adalat dated 02.08.2005 as illegal, void and obtained

through impersonation. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant got

mutated her name over the disputed plots on the basis of award of

Lok Adalat and after getting the aforesaid information, the plaintiffs

inquired into the matter and came to know that the defendant by

playing fraud upon the Lok Adalat, Sasaram filed Case No. 481(D)

of 2005 against the plaintiff no. 1 and got obtained award from lok

Adalat, Sasaram on the basis of forged compromise petition dated

02.08.2005 by impersonating the plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiffs

applied for certified copy of compromise petition filed in the

aforesaid case and award along with the entire order sheet of the

Case No. 481 (D) of 2005 and got certified copy of the aforesaid

compromise petition and award along with order sheet of Case No.

481 (D) of 2005 and then learnt the fraudulent acts of the defendant

and they also came to know that the defendant by impersonating the

plaintiff no. 1 and playing fraud upon Lok Adalat, Rohtas got filed

compromise and got the award from Lok Adalat and, as a matter of

fact, the plaintiff no. 1 had never gifted the suit lands to the

defendant nor he had filed any compromise before the Lok Adalat,

Sasaram. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the above stated suits.

3. The defendant appeared in the aforesaid suit and a petition

under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed

Patna High Court FA No.25 of 2013 dt. 12.09.2018

3/10

praying therein to reject the plaint of the plaintiffs as the suit of the

plaintiffs was barred by Section 21 and Section 22 of the Legal

Services Authorities Act, 1987. The learned Court below having

heard the parties on the aforesaid petition, passed the impugned

judgment dated 15.06.2007 rejecting the plaint of the plaintiffs

under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code. Plaintiffs

being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 15.06.2007 have

preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs challenged

the impugned judgment an