MUTHANAPPA Vs. REVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed challenging the order of rejection of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC in O.S.No.113/2020.

(2.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) The main contention of the defendants in the application before the Trial Court is that the suit is barred by law, there is no cause of action, the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and without impleading all the properties in the suit, they cannot seek the relief of partition. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to by defendant No.5 reiterating the fact that already a suit was filed in O.S.No.24/2013 and parties have appeared and filed compromise petition and compromise decree also passed. It is also contended that in view of the said compromise decree, all the revenue entries were changed in the name of the parties and the parties have acted upon and now, they cannot file one more suit seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the compromise entered between the parties is not binding on them on the ground that they are not the parties to the suit when the mother of the plaintiffs is party to the said compromise and same cannot be agitated and if any grievance is having, they can approach the very same Court where compromise was entered and not filing a separate suit.