RADHARANI Vs. RAMVISHAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 20.9.2018 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Lavkushnagar, District Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.19-A/2017; whereby the application preferred by the applicant under Order 23 Rule 3A read with section 151 of CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) Respondent nos.1 to 9 filed a Civil Suit No.19-A/2017 on 9.2.2017 (Annexure A-9) before the Court of Second Civil Judge-II, Lavkushnagar, District Chhatarpur in relation to the land bearing Khasra Nos.164, 165, 166, 167, 168 and 169 situated in Mauja Kharaba, Tahsil Chandala, District Chhatarpur. The applicant filed her statement before the trial court on 17.11.2017 (Annexure A-10).

(3.) In the aforesaid suit, the applicant/defendant no.1 filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3A read with section 151 of CPC on 24.7.2018 (Annexure A-11) for dismissal of the suit upon the ground that the father of plaintiffs Nathu Nai previously on 12.12.1996 filed a Civil Suit No.144-A/1996 in which the defendant filed his written statement and the aforesaid suit was decided upon the basis of compromise arrived between the parties. Natthu Nai himself admitted the compromise and the matter was decided with the consent of Natthu Nai. Therefore, the suit is not tenable as per the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC. In addition to that, it is also alleged that the present suit has been filed (on 23.10.2018) after 18 years from the date of disposal of the previous suit on 28.2.1999, therefore, the suit is not tenable being time barred. The suit has been filed without disclosing the correct facts regarding the previous suit. Plaintiffs/respondent nos.1 to 9 filed the reply on 31.8.2018 (Annexure A-12) and the trial court dismissed the aforesaid application on 20.9.2018. As per trial court, the previous suit was dismissed upon the basis of compromise. No any decree was passed as per compromise. The Court said that in the application dated 28.2.1999 for compromise it was prayed that the suit be dismissed after accepting the compromise between complainant and defendants. The trial court also mentioned that in the present suit the compromise dated 28.2.1999 has been challenged upon the basis of fraud. Therefore, as per trial court, the suit is maintainable. Hence, the Court dismissed the aforesaid application.