SHYAM PRASAD GUPTA Vs. SHIV PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 14/12/2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by 6th Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.486, area 0.526 hectare, P.H.No.114, R.N.M. Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur. It was averred that in respect of the said land, compromise has taken place between the plaintiff and the defendants in Civil Suit No.182/2010 before the civil Judge, Aurangabad (Bihar) vide order dtd. 16/7/2010 which has attained finality for want of any challenge before the higher forum and as such, it is binding on the parties. In compliance of the said decree, the defendants have got their names mutated in respect of their share of the suit property.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is perverse and liable to be set aside. No suit is maintainable after order of compromise being passed with the leave of the Court and as such, the instant suit is filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff only with a view to snatching the property belonging to the petitioner with ill-intention. In the compromise decree of the year 2010, it is specifically pleaded by all the parties that no party shall challenge the aforementioned compromise before any court of law as a particular term and the present suit has been filed only to harass the petitioner. The trial Court ought to have allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the plaint on the ground that in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC, no independent suit would be maintainable against the compromise decree. It is further argued that the compromise decree is binding on respondent No.1 and therefore, the application under Order VII Rule 11 deserves to be allowed. The instant suit has been filed almost after a period of 10 years, for which the plaintiff must have put forth any plausible explanation but that has not been done. For all these reasons, the impugned order dtd. 14/12/2022 is liable to be set aside and consequently, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on decisions in the matter of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174; Bharvagi Construction and another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, AIR 2017 SC 4428; Sree Surya Developers and Promoters Vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and others, (2022) 5 SCC 736; the order dtd. 5/8/2022 of the High Court of MP in Civil Revision No.341/2021 in the matter of Krishna Kumar Anand and others Vs. Varun Anand and others, and Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, AIR 2023 SC (Civil) 2183.