Advocates:
['PRANAY KR SINHA', '', 'ANIL KUMAR SINGH', 'AYUSH ADITYA']

1

IN THE HIGH Court OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 391 of 2013

1.Smt. Devi Agarwal

2.Sri Ravi Agarwal

3.Sri Rohit Agarwal

4.Sri Rajiv Agarwal......

...

...

...

....

Appellants

Vs.

1.Sri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal

2.Smt. Hemlata Lath

3.Smt. Sheela Devi

4.Sri Manoj Kumar

5.Sri Vikas Agarwal

6.Sri Vivek Agarwal

7.Smt. Sunita Gupta

8.Smt. Kabita Kabara

9.Sri Bijay Kumar Agarwal...

...

...

...

Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR.

------

For the Appellants:

Mr. Pranay Kumar Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondents: M/s Ayush Aditya &

Shashank Shekhar, Advocates.

------

------ Dated 5

^th March, 2014

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed

against the order dated 09.09.2013 passed by learned

Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5068 of 2012 in and by which the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the

appellant rejecting the prayer of the appellants to quash the

order dated 14.08.2012 passed by Sub Judge-IX, Ranchi in

Partition Suit No. 212 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the

Sub-Judge IX, Ranchi rejected the compromise petition filed

by the parties and proceeded to decide the dispute between

the parties through regular trial on the merit of the case.

2.

The facts of the case, leading to filing of this

Letters Patent Appeal, in brief, are as under:

2

3.

A Partition Suit No. 212 of 2006 (Annexure-2)

was filed in the Court of Sub Judge-IX, Ranchi by plaintiffs

[namely, respondent no. 1, 2 and one Most. Pramila Devi

(not party here)] against defendants, [namely, respondent

nos. 3,4,5,6,7,8&9 and husband of appellant no.1and father

of appellant nos. 2 to 4]. The said Partition Suit is still

pending. During the pendency of the said Partition Suit a

joint petition of compromise was filed in the above Suit on

24.03.2009 (Annexure-3) and it is stated by the appellants

that the said compromise petition has been duly signed by

defendant no. 2 (husband of appellant no. 1 and father of

appellant nos. 2 to 4), respondent nos.1,3,4,5,6&9 and

plaintiff no.2 (not party here). Thereafter, a withdrawal

application was filed by the 3^rd defendant (respondent no. 9

herein) on 10.12.2009 seeking withdrawal of the

compromise petition. On 23.3.2010 (Annexure 7), an

application was filed by respondent nos. 3 to 8 before the

Court below praying therein that the compromise petition be

given effect to, except few. Thereafter, the father of the

appellant nos. 2 to 4, filed a petition on 2.3.2012 (Annexure

8) before the Court below praying therein to decree the suit

in terms of the compromise dated 24.3.2009, which was

dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 14.08.2012.

4.

The appellants being aggrieved by order dated

14.08.2012 passed by the Court below in Partition Suit No.

212 of 2006 filed W.P.(C) No. 5068 of 2012 to set aside the

order passed by the Court below on 14.8.2012. Vide order

3

dated 9.09.2013, the learned Single Judge dismissed the

writ petition holding that the plaintiff no. 3, defendant nos. 1

(d) and 1(e) have denied having put their signature in the

compromise petition and in such circumstances, the

compromise petition filed in the suit cannot be accepted. On

this finding, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition, which is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal.

5.

When the matter came up for admission, we

directed the learned counsel for the appellants to advance

argument on the question of maintainability of the appeal.

6.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that even though the writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 5068 of

2012 was filed to quash the order dated 14.08.2012 passed

by Sub-Judge IX, Ranchi rejecting the compromise petition,

the writ petition was filed by the appellants is to be treated

as a writ petition filed under both A