THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. NoS.742 and 809 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are connected with each other, and arise out of the same suit. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.26 of 2000 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, against the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, i.e. 34 cents of land in Sy.No.284/2, and Ac.4.55 cents in Sy.No.288/1 of Bandameeda Kammapalle Revenue Village of Chittoor District. It was pleaded that under a settlement deed executed, by one Sri Dommalapati Ramaiah, on 17-07-1964, the respondents are entitled to one acre of land in the suit schedule property. The 3rd respondent was added as party, since it purchased part of the suit schedule land from the petitioner. It was alleged that though repeated requests were made by them, the petitioner did not effect partition of the property. The petitioner filed a written-statement, opposing the suit. He stated that the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to an extent of 93 cents out of land in Sy.No.288/1, and not more than that. Certain other facts were also pleaded. However, he remained ex parte, thereafter. A compromise was entered into between respondents 1 and 2, on the one hand, and respondent No.3, on the other hand, and on the basis of the same, a preliminary decree was passed on 08-09-2005. The petitioner filed I.A.No.635 of 2006, under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the preliminary decree. He pleaded that though it was on the basis of a compromise between respondents 1 and 2, and respondent No.3, it contained clauses, which adversely affect his rights. Since there was delay of 474 days in presenting that application, he filed I.A.No.634 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner has instituted another set of proceedings: I.A.No.637 of 2006 was filed under Rule 3 of Order 23 read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to declare that the compromise preliminary decree, dated 08-09-2005, is null and void and not binding upon him. I.A.No.636 of 2006 was filed with a prayer to pass another preliminary decree, in the place of the one, that was passed earlier. The applications were opposed by the respondents 1 and 2. The trial Court passed a detailed order in I.A.No.634 of 2006, on 03-12-2007, dismissing the same. In view of the orders passed in I.A.No.634 of 2006, it has dismissed the other applications. C.R.P.No.742 of 2008 is filed against the order in I.A.No.637 of 2008, and C.R.P.No.809 of 2008 is filed against the order in I.A.No.636 of 2006. Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mere fact that the trial Court refused to condone the delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., cannot by itself, be a ground for rejection of an application filed under Rule 3 of Order 23 C.P.C. He contends that the parameters for disposal of an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13, and the connected application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on the one hand, and the one, filed under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C., on the other hand, are totally different. He submits that the trial Court passed a compromise preliminary decree, which not only dealt with the rights of the parties thereto, but also of the petitioner, who is not a signatory. Learned counsel points out that the purport of the compromise decree is opposed to settled principles of law. He places reliance upon several judgments, in support of his contention, such as those, in K. VENKATACHALA BHAT v. KRISHNA NAYAK[1]; SUBBA RAO v. JAGANNADHA RAO[2]; BANWARI LAL v. CHANDO DEVI[3]; SOM DEV v. RATI RAM[4]; D.P. CHADHA v. TRIYUGI NARAIN MISHRA[5] and DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL (D) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER v. B.D. AGARWAL AND OTHERS[6]. Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has pursued the remedies, which are exclusive of each other. He contends that the filing of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., by a defendant, to set aside a compromise decree, to which he is not a party, is untenable and there was no justification to file another application, under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C., simultaneously. He further contends that the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for dismissal of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and that the same hold good for rejection of the applications, which are under challenge in these revisions. In the suit for partition, filed by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner filed his written-statement, but remained ex parte, thereafter. A compromise was entered into between the respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs, and defendant No.2, i.e. the 3rd respondent herein, which is the purchaser of part of the suit schedule property from the petitioner. The petitioner felt that the compromise decree passed on 08-09-2005 adversely affects his rights. He ought to have been careful, in choosing the remedy. On the one hand, he initiated steps, that are applicable for setting aside an ex parte decree, and on the other hand, he filed applications, which are typical for compromise decrees. It was not at all open to him to initiate such contradictory steps. The trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, and applied the effect thereof, to the other applications also. The petitioner filed four revisions against the four IAs, filed by him in the trial Court. On realizing that the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., and the one, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in presenting thereof, are untenable, he sought the permission of the Court, to withdraw the I.As., and the resultant revisions. Today itself, permission was accorded, and the request was acceded to. C.R.P.Nos.807 and 808 of 2008 were dismissed as withdrawn, and the I.As., were also permitted to be withdrawn. Notwithstanding the mistake committed by the petitioner in filing applications for contradictory reliefs, the trial Court ought to have bestowed its attention to the relevant provisions of law in dealing with each of them. The dismissal of I.A.No.634 of 2006 would naturally lead to dismissal of I.A., filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., i.e. I.A.No.635 of 2006. However, the I.A.No.637 of 2006 filed under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C., needed a different consideration, altogether. The grievance of the petitioner that the compromise decree is liable to be set aside, since it contains certain clauses detrimental to his interests, though he is not a party to it; ought to have been examined, independently. I.A.No.636 of 2006 would depend upon the nature of the disposal given to I.A.No.637 of 2006, on merits. Even now, such an exercise can be undertaken. Hence, the revisions are allowed, and the orders under revisions are set aside. The trial Court is directed to take up I.A.No.637 of 2006 and dispose of the same, on merits, with reference to the relevant provisions of law, and the facts pleaded by the parties. The nature of order, that has to be passed in I.A.No.636 of 2006, would depend upon the outcome of I.A.No.637 of 2006. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the applications, as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.05-07-2010. KO [1] (2005) 4 SCC 117 [2] AIR 1967 SC 591 [3] (1993) 1 SCC 581 [4] AIR 2006 SC 3297 [5] (2001) 2 SCC 221 [6] (2003) 6 SCC 230