jpc wp3447-06.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3447 OF 2006 Anandrao Nanasaheb Suryavanshi ... Petitioner Versus Bhausaheb Nanasaheb Suryavanshi ... Respondents and others Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar for the petitioner Mr. Amit Borkar, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 29th November, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition was filed in the year 2006 impugning the order dated 13th June, 2005 by which order, the Application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. 2. Though the petition was filed in the year 2006, for one reason or the other, namely that service was to be effected on the respondents, to bring the heirs on record of the concerned respondents etc. that the petition is pending till this date. Be that as it may, the suit in question i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 243 of 1992 was filed by the present petitioner who was the original plaintiff for partition and separate possession with jpc wp3447-06.sxw 2 respect to the Indira Vikas Patras which were belonging to the joint family. It appears that a compromise pursis was filed in respect of partition of the said Indira Vikas Patras on 16th March, 1995. The said compromise was agreed by all the parties except one Nandini Bhaskarrao Patil who was not present on that day. It appears that thereafter, a compromise dated 20th March, 1993 was prepared and on the said compromise, all the parties concerned had signed including the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that on the said compromise the plaintiff was made to sign under pressure. It was his allegation that the defendants and the advocate of the defendants had threatened him on account of which he had put his signatures on the compromise. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that the properties which were mentioned in the compromise pursis did not include all the suit properties. It was further his case that the criminal cases which were not compoundable were made part of the compromise though it was not permissible to do so. Since the said suit came to be decreed in terms of the compromise, the plaintiff vide the application being Misc. Application No. 146 of 2005, had sought setting aside of the said compromise decree . 3. The trial Court framed the issue as to whether the jpc wp3447-06.sxw 3 plaintiff/applicant proves that the decree in Special Civil Suit No. 243 of 1992 was obtained by playing fraud and not binding upon him. The trial Court, on the basis of the material on record, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff has voluntarily signed the said compromise pursis and in fact has put his signature on every page and has put in all 9 signatures on the said compromises pursis. The trial court also took into consideration the fact that the compromise decree in the said Special Civil Suit No. 243 of 1992 was challenged by the plaintiff, in two more proceedings i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 657 of 1995 and Regular Civil Suit No. 343 of 1994. Both these proceedings were dismissed. The appeals filed against the orders dismissing the said suits were also dismissed and thereby, the compromise decree has not been interfered with, even by the said Courts. In so far as the additional properties were concerned, the trial Court observed that no fault can be found with the additional properties mentioned in the compromise pursis in view of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the properties which were not the subject matter of a suit could be added by consent of the parties. In so far as the signatures of the plaintiff were concerned, apart from his signatures, his advocate one M. R. Nanivadekar has also signed the same and in so far as acceptance of the said compromise was concerned, the same was accepted by the learned Judge after the jpc wp3447-06.sxw 4 report of the Court commissioner in respect of the signatures was obtained. It is required to be noted that the said compromise pursis has been acted upon and the plaintiff has received his share in the Indira Vikas Patras. In so far as the properties of one Sasane Trust, which have been included in the compromise pursis, the learned trial Court held that since the beneficiaries of the trust have thought it fit to enter into a compromise, inclusion of the properties of the said trust could not be faulted with. 4. In the background of the aforesaid facts and in the light of the said compromise pursis/decree which has already been acted upon and the plaintiff even having got his share, in my view, no fault can be found with the order passed by the trial Court. There is no failure on the part of the trial Court to exercise jurisdiction or any other illegality for this court to interdict in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)