CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.15128 OF 2009 ----- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ---- 1-MD.SALAHUDDIN SON OF LATE ABDUL SATTAR RESIDENT OF MOHALLA ANSAR NAGAR,POLICE STATION AND ANCHAL NAWADAH,DISTRICT NAWADAH ----- PETITIONER Versus 1-MD.IMRAN MINOR SON OF MD.SALAHUDDIN 2-GHAZALA KHATOON MINOR DAUGHTER OF MD.SALAHUDDIN BOTH ARE UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MATERNAL GRAND FATHER MD.ZAKIR HUSSAIN SON OF MD.ISHAQUE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHRAWAN, POLICE STATION ROH,DISTRICT NAWADAH AT PRESENT MOHALLA ANSAR NAGAR,POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT NAWADAH 3-THE STATE OF BIHAR -----Respondents ----- For The Petitioner : Mr.Hans Raj For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.ravindra Kr.Sinha For the State : Mr.Binit Kumar, AC to GA IV ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA ----- Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ & S.K.Sharma,J. In the cause list, the name of G.P.IV should be read as G.A.IV as counsel appearing for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Originally this petition was filed as Civil Revision against the order of Civil Judge Ist, Nawadah dated 29.08.2006 passed in Misc.Case No. 07 of 2005. By that order the learned Civil Judge rejected the petitioner’s application dated 14.12.2005 and expressed lack of jurisdiction in reviving the suit whereby Title Suit No. 51 of 1996 was disposed of by recording the 2 settlement between the parties before the Lok Adalat on 24.8.2005 on the ground of compromise. Subsequently, Civil Revision Application has been converted into writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer on behalf of the petitioner is to hold that the settlement made through Lok Adalat on the basis of compromise is based upon forgery and fraud and accordingly disposal of the suit on the basis of order of the Lok Adalat be nullified. The suit in question was brought by the wife of the petitioner claiming share in some of the properties, particularly, a residential house over a small area of few decimals. She died during pendency of the suit and it appears that her minor son and daughter from the petitioner have now been substituted in her place and accepted to be under the guardianship of their grand maternal father. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade us to hold that the 3 settlement in Lok Adalat was forged and fraudulent because the signature on the application of settlement was in Hindi and allegedly, the petitioner never signs in Hindi as would appear from some of his signatures from the records of this case and over the written statement filed in the suit. It was also submitted that the lawyer who had signed as lawyer for the petitioner was never engaged by the petitioner. Further, it was highlighted that in his application for declaring the transaction as forged and fraudulent, the petitioner had alleged that compromise petition was not available on the records of the case. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that after the death of his wife, the petitioner agreed for compromise for the sake of his children and now when he has married another lady, he wants to repudiate the compromise and settlement. It was asserted that the application for settlement before Lok Adalat as well compromise petition were signed by the petitioner but in Hindi. It was further 4 submitted that a photo copy of certified copy of compromise petition is available with the counsel and that bears the stamp and some initials showing that it was filed before the Secretary of permanent Lok Adalat at Nawadah where it was given case number as 61 of 2005 relating to Title Suit No. 51 of 1996. In our considered view, it is not possible for this Court to give a satisfactory finding on the issue of fraud and forgery merely on the basis of submissions and some photo copy of document and statements made on affidavit. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that, if so advised, he may approach the Civil Court by filing a properly constituted civil suit to seek necessary relief on the ground of forgery or fraud. Since we have found difficulty in deciding the relevant issues in writ jurisdiction, in our view, the petitioner cannot be left without any remedy. Hence, if he approaches the civil court with a suit, 5 the same shall be decided on merits. We make it clear that we have not expressed our views with regard to merits of the case and this order will not affect either of the parties on merits of the matter in controversy. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) Patna High Court,Patna The 23rd November,2009 Tahir/-(NAFR). ( Shyam Kishore Sharma,J .)