^A ^-^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH\AT^ILASPUR ^ fC.G.) fo^ CIVIL REVISION N0. I u ^ OF 2009^.^ gQ|^ APPLICANT Plaintiff ^•-" ^^ t-"" .^y i^"" ^\^.\^ ^" ^^ .^- ^^•B' Smt. Bhula @ Bhagwati Thakur, wffe of Shambhu Singh Thakur, aged about 45 years, Daughter of Shri Kunj Bihari Thakur, R/o Village Khapri (S), Post Nipaniya, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^^/ NON-APPLICANTS: Defendant No.l i Defendant no.2 Defendant No. 3 Manharan Singh Thakur, S/o Kunj Bihari Thakur, aged about not known, R/o Village Jarvay @ Heerapur, Patwari Halka No. 103, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) t^ 2. Udya Economics Housing & Construction Limited Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) Through: Director Smt. Ani George, W/o George Cherian, R/o Heerapur, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Collector, Raipur, Collector Office, Raipur (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ;;;^^ \;.' ^ ..•<^"^ l^l&^ '^ <5^ SSsss&^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT Civil RevisionNo. 103 of2009 : Smt. Bhula @ Bhagwati Thakur Versus NON-APPLICANTS : Manhamn Singh Thakiir <fe others CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF •THE CODE OF^CIVILPRQCTDUSE fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) j Present : Shri PP Sahu, Advocate for the applicant. Shri CR Sahu, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 04.03.2011) 1. Legality and propriety ofthe order dated 29.07.2009, passed by the IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur, in Civil SuitNo. 56-A/08 is under assail in the instant revision. 2. Facts in brief are that : the applicant/plamtiff instituted a suit against the respondents fbr relief of declaration of title, partition, sepamte possession and for permanent injunction. Permanent injunction was claimed to restrain the respondent No. 1 & 2 from implementing agreement of sale dated 07.10.2005 entered into between them. Later on a compromise petition was filed by the applicant as well as defendant No. 2 for passing the decree in terms ofcompromise. -7 .^c^ 6. The trial court, having found the compromise would effect the interest of the respondent No. 2, dismissed the above compromise petition. Hence this revision. Shri PP Sahu, leamed counsel appearing for the applicant would submit: the dispute regarding ownership ofthe land was between the applicant and the respondent No. 1; the respondent No. 2 is a third person and has no right whatsoever in a suit for partition of the property between brother and sister; the respondent No. 2 has no right to object the compromise petition preferred by the applicant and respondent No. 1, and thus, the court below has rejected the compromise petition on the grounds which are not sustainable in law and compromise petition preferred by the applicant and respondent No. 1 deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Sinha, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2would submit : tte respondent No. 2 isvery much interested in the result ofthe suit and therefore without he being a party to the compromise, no compromise decree can be passed and the trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and pemsed the order impugned. Order 23 Rule 3 ofCPC reads as under: "3. Comproimse of suit, Where it is proved to the satisfaction ofthe Court that a suit has been a4justed whblly or in part by any ^vflil agreement or ?;il^lp;l% compromise l[in writing and signed by tlie'parties] or where the defendant satisfied the plaintiff in respect ofthe whole or any part ofthe subject-matter ofthe suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree is accordance therewith 2[so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit:] [Provided that where it is alkged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been amved at, the Court shall decide the question; but not adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjoumment.]" 8. As per above provision, the court can only permit compromise between the parties ifit is lawfol and signed by both the parties. 9. Here in the instant case, the compromise was not signed by the respondent No. 2 who is very much interested person in the result ofthe suit, inasmuch as, according to him, he entered into agreement of sale with respondent No. 1. Petitioner also claimed reliefofinjunction against him in the civil suit. 10. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this court, the court below has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in dismissing the applicant's application for compromise warranting interference ofthis court in exercise of its revisionaljurisdiction. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision fails and is ,- accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge