AMELA BEGUM MAZUMDAR Vs. ABID HUSSAIN MAZUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. G.C. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) IN this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 16 of 2012 of this Court decreeing the suit on compromise as against the defendants No. 1 to 4 of the suit.

(3.) ALTHOUGH this application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India yet as required under Rule 1 (V) of Chapter 5 -B of the Gauhati High Court rules, no ground has been set out in the application. The petitioners did not dispute that there was a compromise between the plaintiffs and the defendants No. 1 to 4. The only objection that is discernible on perusal of this revision petition is that the compromise petition did not contain any date but it was instantly allowed on 08.01.2014. The learned court considered the application and passed admission decree against the defendants No. 1 to 4. But no opportunity of hearing was given to the present petitioners before passing the impugned order. According to the petitioners such order can never be permissible and compromise should not be detrimental to the interest of the other party of the proceeding. However, as against the specific question asked by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not claimed that compromise has been fraudulently entered into to cause detriment to the present petitioners. In Paragraph 13 of this petition, it is claimed that the learned Court was not entitled to proceed with the suit without 'converting (sic)' the present petitioners as they are the contesting defendants. The other objection is that proforma defendants No. 43 is minor.