IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.RJSTo i^ Applicant/ Applicant .^'^s^ c'^s--""'. .;.'• •j,.-'~n" ' ^.-,."rfa' ,,-teQ.w - .......v", Pie?''2' 0-- "^- .\^1 Non-applicants/ tespondents 1] ^ /2011 s.m'rr-.' ..-.^.-. '£ft''^m'Fr;- •:1 :':"'" ^ ^Aajuman Mahbubia Committee, Village Patna, through - Sadar (President) Abdul Rouf S/o Khadim Mohd. aged about 65 years, Anjuman Mahbubia Committee, Patna, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, Distri.et Koria, (C.G.) VERSUS Kamroonnisha D/o Late Zareeb Khan, aged about 45 years Khairoonnisha W/o Mohd. Iqbal aged about 35 years Samsunnisha D/o Late Mohd. Zareeb Khan, aged about 30 years All above R/o village Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria, (C.G.), ., Stafe oi];'Chhattisgarh, through - Collector Baikunthpur' Koria, District Koria (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL 'PROCEDURE i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 01 of 2011 Applicant Non-applicants/ Respondents Anjuman Mahbubia Committee, Village Patna VERSUS Kamroonnisha & others (Civil Revision under_SectiQnll5 ofthe Code ofCivil Procediire) (SB: Hon'bleMr.N.K.AsarwaLJ.) Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the applicant. Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 31.03.2011) 1. Legality and proprietary oforder dated 15.12.2010, passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Manendragarh at Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria, in Misc. Civil Case No. 12/10 is under assail in the instant 2. revision. Brief facts of the case are that: respondent No. 1 to 3 filed a civil suit in the year 1985 for declaration-and pennanent injunction in respect ofland bearing Khasra No. 709, area 0.125 Hect. against the applicant. T-he suit filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Civil Court vide itsjudgment'and decree dated 05.08.1988 passed in civil suk No. 15-A785. Respondents filed an appeal. During pendency of appeal bearing case No. l-A/89, the matter was compromised and based on compromise judgment and decree dated 26.11.1990 has been passed. .,,.'-' ^-•Si'^,,\ ^A> '^ ^ 3. On 07.02.2002, applicant filed an application under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 of CPC seeking relief of quashment ofjudgment and decree dated 26.11.1990 inter-alia on the grounds: compromise is unlawful and not in the interest of applicant, obtained by respondents by playing fraud and false assurance. 4. The trial court, vide order impugned dismissed the above application. Hence this revision. 5. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, leamed counsel appearing for the applicant would submit: if the compromise decree is unlawful or obtained by playing fraud or is otherwise void, the same can be challenged by filing an application under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 of CPC. For this, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Banwari Lal v. Smt. Chando Devi (through L.R.) and another and also judgment of MP High Court in case of Raghuvir Singh S/o Sher Singh and others v. Ramdarshan Raincharan Kirar and others . He would further submit the applicant's application have wrongly been rejected by the court below. 9 6. On the other hand, Shri HB Agrawal, leamed- Sr. counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 to 3 would submit: the parties' have entered into ' compromise with open eyes, at the time ofcompromise Abdul Rouf was the President of applicant's committee who entered into compromise and the same person has challenged the compromise after a period of 12 years on the ground that he was not having any 'AIR 1993 SC1139 22002(1)MPLJ-617 "^ Si !Ss.^--^BS!. J I 1 ''tB-'"' ,'! i^^^..;" authority to enter into compromise. He would further submit fhat nothmg has been shown suggesting decree is unlawful and the application filed by the applicant has rightly been rejected by the court below. 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 8. The appellate court recorded the statement of ex-President Mohd. Hussain and present President Abdul Rouf and both of them have stated on oath that they entered into compromise with their free Will and without any pressure, and compromise is in the interest of Committee. Based on statement on oath of Abdul Rouf, the compromise decree was passed. 9. It appears, vide resolution (Annexure A/4), applicant's committee had decided to challenge the compromise decree and for that its President Abdul Roufhas been authorized. There is nothing in the - resolution suggesting the compromise decree passed was obtained by playing fraud or false assurance. ..Even, no material has been placed showing compromise is unlawful or otherwise invalid. According to doctrine of merger, the decree of tnal court is already merged in the decree passed.by the appellate court. The applicant has not. placed any <thaterial and also failed to show any circumstances showing compromise decree is obtained by playing fraud. 86' M 10. As per judgment of Supreme Court in case of Banwari Lal v. Smt. Chando Devi (Supra) : a party challenging a compromise can file a petition under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23, or an appeal under Section 96 (1) ofthe Code, in which he can question the yalidity of compromise. If the agreement or compromise itself is fi-audulent then it should be deemed to be void within the meaning of the explanation to the proviso to Rule 3 and as such not lawful. 11. There is no quarrel with the above proposition. The trial court also coasidered and held that application lis maintainable but on merit's dismissed the petition. After going through order impugned and material placed on record, I also do not find any Ulegality or impropriety in fhe order impugned warranting interference of this court under its revisional jurisdiction. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. an t" • Sahu S(V- N.K.Agarawal Judge s