// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6842/2007 Chhote S/o Shri Bhagri and Others Versus Hukam Singh S/o Umrao and Others Date of Order ::: 08.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajkamal Gaur, Counsel for petitioners #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the compromise and the judgment and decree dated 25th February, 1972 passed in the Civil Suit No.547/71 by the Civil Judge No.1, Dholpur. It appears that plaintiffs Bhagri and Mavasia filed a suit for possession and damages against the defendant Hukam Singh in the trial court in the year 1970 wherein both the parties entered into a compromise and a written- compromise dated 25th February, 1972 (Annexure- 5), duly signed by both the parties, was placed on the record and on that basis the learned trial court passed a decree dated 25th February, 1972 (Annexure-6). The said compromise was not challenged by the plaintiffs and, now, after a // 2 // gap of more than 36 years, the petitioners, who are legal representatives of plaintiffs late Shri Bhagri and late Shri Mavasia, have preferred this writ petition challenging the aforesaid compromise and decree based on it, on the ground that both were ab-initio-void and the same are liable to be quashed and set-aside by this Court. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. The original suit was filed by Bhagri and Mavasia, which was decreed on the basis of compromise way back in the year 1972. Both the plaintiffs did not challenge the said compromise during their life time. Now, after a period of more than 36 years, the legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs Bhagri and Mavasia have preferred this writ petition. No reasonable explanation has been given for the delay of more than 36 years in filing the writ petition. Apart from above, it is also relevant to mention that the respective parties are in their respective possession over the land in dispute in terms of compromise since 1972 i.e. for last more than 36 years and they have acquired their independent right under the law of adverse possession etc. In view of the above discussions, I do // 3 // not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//