IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.537 of 2010 KRISHNA KUMAR SINHA, son of Late Ram Sharan Prasad, resident of Mohalla – 108, Lakshman Sahay Lane, Station Road, P.S. – Kotwali, District – Gaya. -------- Plaintiff/Appellant. Versus 1. BIJAY KUMAR SINHA, son of Sri K.K. Sinha 2. Ajay Kumar Sinha, son of Sri K.K. Sinha 3. Smt. Purnima Devi, wife of Sri Bijay Kr. Sinha 4. Smt. Geeta Devi, Wife of Sri Ajay Kr. Sinha All resident of 142 – New Baradwari, Sakchi, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand). 5. Smt. Shila Devi, wife of Sri Prahalad Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Shivpur, P.S. – Police Line, District – Ranchi. 6. Smt. Veena Devi, wife of Sri Raju Prasad, Resident of Mohini Market, Exhibition Road, Patna. 7. Smt. Renu Devi, wife of Sri Ranjan Kumar, resident of A/29, Peoples Co-operative Colony, Kankarbagh, behind Tiwari Bechar Petrol Pump, P.O. and District – Patna. ****** For the Appellant : Sri V. Nath, Adv. Sri Manish Kumar No.2 Adv. ****** 03. 19.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the sole appellant at the stage of admission. This appeal has been preferred against order dated 19.04.2010 passed by Sub-Judge – IIIrd, Gaya in T.S. No. 343/2009/392/2009, allowing the prayer of defendant respondents against plaintiff appellant and restraining the plaintiff from interfering in possession of the defendant over suit property and further making any alienation. This is undisputed position as submitted by learned counsel for the - 2 - appellant that subject matter of the suit originally belonged to one Ram Sharan Prasad who dies leaving behind two sons namely, Krishna Kumar Sinha and Saroj Kumar Sinha, amongst whom after death of their father, there was a partition and subject matter of the suit was allotted to the share of plaintiff. Subsequently, by virtue of one partition suit no. 174/1989 between plaintiff and his sons etc., by virtue of compromise decree dated 02.02.1990, property was partitioned as per respective shares agreed between the parties. Now after lapse of 19 years plaintiff has come up with the case that he is the exclusive owner of subject matter of the suit inherited from his father which was self- acquired property of his deceased father and on partition amongst two brothers allotted to him. Further the compromise decree in the partition suit was void-ab-initio not binding upon him. It is also the case of the plaintiff that at the instance of his sons to avoid some creditors that suit was brought, just to save the properties from creditors. They entered into compromise and admitted - 3 - respective shares of the persons. One of such co-sharers allotted share due to that compromise was wife of the plaintiff who is now no longer alive leaving her sons etc. as legal heir. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that provision as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code is available only to the plaintiff. There is no provision for the defendant to seek such remedy against the plaintiff, but, this submission is not acceptable. The law is equally applicable to all parties to the suit in case of need. Provision as contemplated under section 94 of the Civil Procedure Code further added with inherent jurisdiction under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code empowers the court to pass appropriate orders at the instance of either of the side taking care of subject matter of the suit and interest of the parties. So far question of properties being coparcenery or validity of compromise decree passed in the year 1990 is concerned, all these points can be adjudicated upon at the appropriate stage. So far impugned order is - 4 - concerned, I find no illegality or irregularity committed by the court below. Thus, finding no merit, this appeal stands dismissed at this stage itself. However, as prayed by learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant, the court below is directed to proceed expeditiously with the suit. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)