KALIPADA DEKA Vs. DANPATI DEKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has arisen out of the order, dated 26-2-97, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Nalbari, in Misc. (J) Case No. 34/95, arising out of TS No. 21/91.

(2.) The case of the petitioners may, in brief, be stated as follows : The petitioners and the opposite party are brothers. The opposite party instituted the TS No. 21/91 aforementioned in the Court of the learned Munsif No. 1, Nalbari, seeking declaration of his exclusive title over the land described in the three schedules to the plaint and seeking khas possession, thereof by evicting the petitioners. The petitioners contested the suit as defendants. When the suit was pending, a sitting for settlement of the dispute between the parties was held, on 11-12-94, at the house of one Dona Ram Deka and the same was attended to by not only the parties to the said suit, but also by their co-villagers. The dispute was amicably resolved and the terms and conditions of the compromise/settlement so reached, were reduced into writing and the parties to the suit as well as the witnesses concerned put their signatures thereon. This deed of compromise was handed over to the plaintiff by the opposite party for doing the needful on 12-12-94, i.e. the date on which the suit was fixed. On 12-12-94, since learned Munsiff was absent, the deed of compromise could not be filed in the Court and the opposite party asked the petitioners to come to the Court on 14-12-94. When the petitioners reached the Court on 14-12-94, the opposite party handed over to them a compromise petition asking them to put their signatures thereon and the opposite party also told the petitioners that the said compromise petition had been written in accordance with the terms and conditions reached at the said sitting. the opposite party also told the petitioners that since the Presiding Officer would be leaving the Court room, the said compromise petition should be filed immediately. The petitioners, therefore, put their signatures on the said compromise petition hurriedly without going through the contents thereof and as the opposite party is elder brother of the petitioners, the petitioners had no reasons to doubt the bona fide or the truth of what the opposite party had told them. The lawyers of both the parties also put their signatures on the said compromise petition. The said compromise petition was, submitted in the Court and a compromise decree accordingly followed. Later on, the petitioners came to know that the said compromise petition had not been written in accordance with the terms and conditions of the settlement, which had actually been reached by the parties. Having come to learn the same, the petitioners instituted TS No. 9/95 in the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Nalbari, for setting aside the compromise decree, dated 14-12-94 aforementioned. By order, dated 4-7-95, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit on the ground that the same was barred by provisions of Rule 3A of O. 23 of CPC. The petitioners, then filed a petition under the provisions of Rule 3 of O. 23 read with S.151 of CPC before the learned Munsiff on 1-8-95 praying for setting aside the compromise decree, dated 14-12-94, aforementioned. This petition gave rise to Misc(J) Case No. 24/95. During the course of the hearing the petitioners examined as many as 5 witnesses. Opposite party also adduced evidence by examining himself as a witness. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Munsiff passed the impugned order, dated 26-2-97, rejecting the petition and dismissing Misc(J) Case No. 24/95. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have, now, approached this Court.

(3.) I have carefully perused the materials on record and I have heard Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel for petitioners. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party.