IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17230 of 2011 Brij Nandan Singh & Anr Versus Shanti Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 29.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel Mr. Om Prakash Pandey appearing on behalf of the petitioners. This writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 2.7.2011 passed by Sub Judge-II, Jamui in Title Suit No. 18 of 2009 whereby the learned court below recorded the compromise between the plaintiff and defendant 1st set and directed that the suit shall continue against the defendant 2nd set interveners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact the intervenes petitioners have also got share in the suit property and, therefore, the plaintiff could not have been allowed to compromise the suit only with the defendant 1st set who were the original defendants. In such view of the matter, the compromise itself was illegal and the court below could not have recorded the same. Admittedly, the property has been purchased by the plaintiff from Hari Singh and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title against the heirs of Hari Singh. These petitioners intervened in the suit and they were made defendants 2nd set. Thereafter 2 the plaintiff compromised the suit with the original defendants who are the heirs of the said Hari Singh and a compromise application was filed. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the compromise recorded by the court below is illegal. However, it is settled law that this compromise is between the plaintiff and the defendant 1st set and this compromise shall not bind any person who is not a party to the compromise. If so advised, the petitioners may approach appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceeding for the redressal of their grievance. With the above observation, this writ application is disposed of. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)