SAKINA SULTANALI SUNESARA Vs. SHIA IMAMI ISMAILI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following issues have been placed for consideration before the Full Bench, pursuant to the order passed by the Single Bench on 7.12.2017 in the captioned matters:-

(2.) The brief facts as transpiring from the record are that the Appellants of the Appeal from Order No.16 of 2017, who are the same as the Appellants in Appeal from Order No.33 of 2017, were sued in a suit being Special Civil Suit No.6 of 2016 and Special Civil Suit No.19 of 2016 respectively through their power-of-attorney holder. The power-of-attorney holder was stated to have accepted the summons in the said two suits. The said power-of-attorney holder entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs of the said two suits, and the decrees came to be passed by the Court on the basis of the said compromise. According to the appellants, the said power-of-attorney was already cancelled since long, and therefore, the said power-of-attorney holder had acted unauthorizedly. Thus, according to the appellants of the said two Appeals from Order, though the appellants were the party to the said two suits, they were actually not the party to the consent/compromise when the decree dated 15.3.2016 and 17.12.2016 were passed in the said two suits. Being aggrieved by the said two decrees passed in the Special Civil Suit No.6 of 2016 and Special Civil Suit No.19 of 2016, which were passed after recording the compromise, the A. O. No.16 of 2017 and the A. O. No.33 of 2017 respectively have been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1-A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC").

(3.) The Appellants of the A. O. No.18 of 2017 and of the A. O. No.19 of 2017 have also challenged the impugned decree dated 15.3.2016 in Special Civil Suit No.6 of 2016, however, the said Appellants were not the party to the said suit.