CRP 195/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY These revision petitions being against the identical orders dated 5.5.2010 passe d by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in Title Appeal Nos. 33/2009 and 36/2009, which arise out of the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 347/2007 are taken up for hearing and disposal together, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent Kamelswar Ojha filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of the ri ght, title and interest in respect of the land covered by Dag No. 544 of KP Patt a No. 531 of village Barpeta town claiming that he has acquired right by adverse possession, as well as for injunction. The said suit was instituted against the respondent Chabin Das as the main defendant as well as against the present peti tioners as defendants. Chabin Das/defendant No. 1 apart from filing the written statement has also filed a counter claim to the effect that he has acquired the right, title and interest in respect of the land covered by Dag No. 544 by right of purchase. The present petitioners, however, did not contest the suit. The learned trial court by the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2009 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and also the counter claim of Chabin Das. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff Kamaleswar Ojha and Chabin Das preferred Title Ap peal Nos. 36/2009 and 33/2009, respectively, in the court of the learned Civil J udge, Barpeta. In the said appeals the present petitioners, who were the defenda nts in the suit, were arrayed as proforma respondents. During the pendency of th e appeals joint applications were filed by Kamaleswar Ojha and Chabin Das for re cording the compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC contending that they hav e entered into a settlement by dividing the land covered by Dag No. 544 between them. On the said applications, the impugned orders were passed by the learned C ivil Judge on 5.5.2010 decreeing the suit on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. The said orders are under cha llenge in the present revision. I have heard Mr. Khetri, learned senior counsel and Ms Barman, learned counsel a ppearing for Kamaleswar Ojha, the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent/defendan t No. 1 Chabin Das did not contest the present revisions. It is submitted by Mr. Khetri, learned senior counsel that the learned court bel ow ought not to have accepted the compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and passed the decree as b y such application the right of the petitioners over the property has taken away and they have been deprived from enjoyment of the property though the learned t rial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as well as the counter claim filed by the defendant No. 1 claiming the property covered by Dag No. 544, which belongs to the present petitioners who were the defendants in the suit. It has also been submitted that the learned first appellate court even did not i ssue any notice, on the said application filed by the plaintiff and the defendan t No. 1, to the present petitioners and passed the orders affecting their right without hearing them. Per contra it has been submitted by Ms Barman, learned counsel appearing for Kam aleswar Ojha, the plaintiff, that the present petitioners though were the main d efendants in the suit they did not contest the same and as such they are not req uired to be heard on the compromise petition filed by the plaintiff and the defe ndant No. 1, more so when they were the proforma respondents in the appeals. It appears from the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in the aforesaid suit that the claim of the plaintiff as well as of the defendant No. 1 was dismissed. The plaintiff as well as the defendant No. 1 thereafter preferr ed the aforesaid appeals, wherein they have filed the joint compromise petitions under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC claiming that they have apportioned the land c overed by Dag No. 544 between them amicably. The said application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide orders dated 5.5.2010 passed in the aforesaid appe als and accordingly the decree has been passed on the basis of the compromise be tween the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. The learned Judge, however, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and the co unter claim of the defendant No. 1 in respect of the land covered by Dag No. 544 did not take into consideration the judgment and decree passed by the learned t rial court whereby and whereunder the claim of the plaintiff and the defendant N o. 1 in respect of the said land covered by the said Dag was dismissed. In the main suit the present petitioners were the defendants and it was also the case that the land under Dag 544 originally belonged to them, the learned appel late court ought not to have passed the order on the joint compromise petitions filed by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 without hearing the present petit ioners who were the main defendants in the suit and the proforma respondents in the aforesaid appeals as by such compromise between the plaintiff and the defend ant No. 1 the interest of the present petitioners over the land has been adverse ly affected. That being the position both the orders dated 5.5.2010 passed in Title Appeal No s. 33/2009 and 36/2009 by the Civil Judge, Barpeta are set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta for passing necessary orders on the joint compromise petition filed by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and up on hearing the present petitioners apart from hearing the plaintiff and defendan t No. 1. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta on 24 .1.2012. Since the defendant No. 1 Chabin Das has not entered appearance in the present proceeding the learned Civil Judge shall issue notice to him and decide the said application upon service of notice on him. The revision petitions are accordingly allowed. No cost.