HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

…

RP no.29/2022

CM no.488/2022

Reserved on: 26.07.2022

Pronounced on: 01.09.2022

Megha Thakur

……...Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr G. S. Thakur, Advocate

Versus

Shanker Dass andothers

…...…Respondent(s)

Through: None

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. Review of the judgement dated 28^th December 2021,dismissing writ

petition, bearing WP(C) no.30/2021, titled asMegha Thakur v.

Shanker Dass and others, is sought for on the grounds made mention

of in the instant petition.

2. The case set up by review petitioner, as is also gatherable from

perusal of the file, is that a suit for partition by metes and bounds was

filed by Anjana Rani 3 respondent no.10 (mother of review

petitioner). It is claimed that petitioner, who was minor, along with

her sister (proforma respondent no.11 herein) preferred a suit through

her natural guardian and during pendency of suit, a compromise was

arrived at between parties, followed by issuance of compromise deed

dated 16^th August 2019. It is averred that when petitioner attained the

age of majority, she on 29^th March 2019, directed an Appeal before

the court of Principal District Judge, Reasi, along with an application

for condoning delay. Appeal, however, was withdrawn on 27^th

January 2021, on the context that she would approach Trial Court

(Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class. On 5^th February 2021, review petitioner

approached Trial Court for setting-aside the judgement and decree

dated 16^th August 2018. Review petitioner failed as the Trial Court

vide order dated 28^th August 2021, dismissed the suit of review

petitioner by relying on the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC.

Review petitioner preferred a petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to throw challenge to the order dated 28^th

August 2021. A Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 28^th

December 2021 dismissed the petition, of which review is sought

here.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and considered the matter.

4. Learned counsel appearing for review petitioner has stated that

judgement 28^th December 2021, of which review is sought herein, is

contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.

Janakiammal v. S. K. Kumarasamy, 2021 (7) Scale 574 as it has been

held therein that the only remedy available to a party to a consent

decree to avoid such consent decree is to approach the court which

recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms thereof and

establish that there was no compromise, in that event the court which

recorded the compromise will establish, consider and decide the

question as to whether there was a valid compromise or not.

According to learned counsel for review petitioner, a consent decree is

a contract between parties with the seal of approval of the court and

that the validity of consent decree depends wholly on the validity of

agreement or compromise, on which it is made.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that while considering abovementioned

contentions, the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order

XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be taken into

consideration.

6. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order

XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under:

51. Application for review of judgment. - (1) Any person considering

himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from

which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and

who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence

which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his

knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the

decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or

error apparent on the face of the record, o