MAHAMAYA PAUL Vs. DIPAK KUMAR MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from an order dated May 25, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Title Suit No. 2800 of 2011 by which an application under Order 7, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and the plaint of the said suit was rejected.

(2.) The appellant-petitioner filed Title Suit No. 2800 of 2010, inter alia, seeking for a decree for declaration that a compromise decree dated January 10, 1992 passed in Title Suit No. 31 of 1990 was bad being an outcome of fraud.

(3.) From the averments made in the plaint, it appears that the respondent/opposite party No. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 116 of 1987 in the capacity of sole shebait and next friend of the deities, namely, Shree Shree Iswar Narayan Jew Thakur and Shree Shree Iswar Shib Thakur against Deb Kumar Mukherjee and Bimal Kumar Chatterjee seeking declaration that the disputed property was a debutter and the aforesaid persons could not treat the said property as secular one. Subsequently, on the prayer of the plaintiff made in the said suit, this appellant was added along with some other persons as the defendants therein. The said suit was, subsequently, renumbered as Title Suit No. 31 of 1990. The said suit was, ultimately, compromised between the parties on January 10, 1992. According to the petitioner although she was a party in the said suit, but summons were not served on her nor she had ever engaged any lawyer to represent her. She alleged that the lawyer, who, allegedly appeared on her behalf, was never engaged by her. She did not sign any compromise petition. Therefore, the said compromise decree was obtained fraudulently. In this suit the plaintiff/appellant took out an application for injunction praying for an order restraining the respondents from interfering and/or dealing with the said property.