MANOWAR ISLAM Vs. MASUD AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A compromise entered into between the parties to a suit involving immovable property has tossed up the present controversy in this revision. The plaintiff in the suit, is before this Court assailing the order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Golaghat in Title Execution Case No.11/98 allowing amendment of a compromise decree on the basis of an application filed by the opposite party Nos 1 to 4.

(2.) I have heard Mr.PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BK Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs T. Goswami counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4. None has appeared on behalf of the other members of the opposite party.

(3.) The bare facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that the petitioner as plaintiff filed Title Suit No.22 of 1991 against the opposite party in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Golaghat praying for a decree for partition of suit property described in Schedule A to the plaint and other reliefs. In the said suit opposite party Nos 9, 10, 11 and 12 were impleaded as defendant Nos 6,7,8 and 9. As according to the plaintiff they were transferees of land in the same patta in which the suit land was included, but no relief was claimed against them. Schedule A to the plaint was described as hereunder: "14 (fourteen) bighas 1 (one)katha out of 16 bighas 2 kathas 15 lechas of land under Periodic Patta No. 4 covered by Dag No.588 (1B 4K 1L). 590 (2B 3K 6L), 591 (IB 3K 10L), 632 (IB OK 3L), 634 (7B 1K) at Bokakhat Town, Mouza Bokakhat, District Golaghat (Assam)."