CRP 198/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. SP Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. KR Surana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.266 /2009. The petitioners, who are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid suit, filed the present application seeking to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in challenging the order dated 28th March, 2011 passed in the said suit rejecting the application filed by them to record the compromi se arrived at between them and also the prayer for striking out the name of the defendant No.1 from the said suit. The plaintiff/respondent instituted the said suit against the present petitioner s as defendant Nos.1 and 2, for declaration of right, title and interest and als o for confirmation of possession of the suit land, apart from praying for a decr ee declaring that the sale deed No.10980/09 dated 15th September, 2010 is void a b-initio, illegal, fraudulent and the defendant No.2 did not have any right, tit le, interest or possession over the suit land and consequently he did not have a ny authority to mutate the said land in his own name and to execute any sale dee d. A decree for permanent injunction was also sought for. The petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written statements in the aforesaid suit. They also filed an application to record compromise contending that the defendant No.1 has entered into a compromise on 24th March, 2010 with t he defendant No.2 as he has returned the consideration amount of Rs.12,87,500/- to the defendant No.1 in terms of the sale deed dated 15th September, 2009 and h ence both of them had agreed to cancel the sale deed, as per the compromise deed dated 24th March, 2010. A further prayer has also been made for striking out t he name of the defendant No.1, in view of the aforesaid compromise deed dated 24 th March, 2010. The learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup at Guwahati vide order dated 28th March, 20 11 has refused to pass any order keeping the said to be considered at the approp riate stage. It has been contended by Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners that since one of the prayer in the suit is for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15th S eptember, 2009, the learned Court below ought not to have refused to entertain t he application and pass necessary order recording compromise and striking out th e name of the defendant No.1 from the suit, as by the compromise deed dated 24th March, 2010, the defendant No.2 agreed to cancel the sale deed executed in favo ur of the defendant No.1. On the other hand, Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the respondent submits that s ince the suit of the plaintiff is for cancellation of the said sale deed dated 1 5th September, 2009 as being void ab-initio, illegal and fraudulent, apart from declaration of right, title and interest, the learned Court below has rightly di d not record the compromise between the defendant Nos.1 and 2, that too in a sui t filed by the plaintiff, and for striking out the name of the defendant No.1, w hose presence is necessary in the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff. M r. Surana has further submitted that the learned Court below has rightly passed the order dated 28th March, 2011 to consider the prayer made by the defendant No s.1 and 2 at the appropriate stage of the suit. As noticed above, the suit is for right, title and interest and also for confirm ation of possession, apart from declaration of the sale deed dated 15th Septembe r, 2009 as void ab-initio, illegal, fraudulent and that the defendant No.2 did n ot have any right, title and interest over the said suit land and consequently d id not have any authority to mutate the said land in his own name and to execute or register the sale deed. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 stated to have entered into a compromise deed dated 24 th March, 2010, by which the defendant No.2 has agreed to cancel the aforesaid s ale deed pursuant to such compromise and consequently filed the said application , which was decided to be considered by the learned Judge at the appropriate sta ge vide order dated 28th March, 2011. The plaintiff’s suit being for declaration of right, title and interest, as noticed above, and also claiming that the defe ndant Nos.1 and 2 have no interest over the land and for cancellation of the sal e deed executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1, as well a s the said sale deed having not yet been cancelled, the learned Court below has rightly decided to consider the said application at the appropriate stage, vide order dated 28th March, 2011, which requires no interference of this Court in ex ercise of the jurisdiction under 227 of the Constitution of India and hence the same is dismissed. No costs.