RAMESH KUMAR BANSAL Vs. USHA RANI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Civil Suit bearing No. 185, dtd. 15/9/2011, was instituted by Usha Rani, Asha Rani, Geeta Rani and Rano (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) daughters of late Karam Chand against respondent No.5 - Krishna Devi Wd/o of late Karam Chand and respondent No.6 - Pawan Kumar s/o late Karam Chand, Punjab National Bank and Anita Goyal w/o Jai Parkash Goyal, wherein, a claim of declaration of 1/6th share each in the

(2.) property owned by late Karam Chand and a claim of possession by declaration, was made besides a challenge to the Mutation Nos.12545 and 13512 of village Kukar Majra. In the aforementioned suit, injunction was also claimed for restraining Krishna Devi (respondent No.5 herein) from alienating the property. The said suit was dismissed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Amloh (in short 'ACJ') vide judgment and decree dtd. 25/5/2018. The dismissal of the aforementioned civil suit was challenged vide Civil Appeal No.66, dtd. 3/7/2018 by respondents No.1 to 4 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib (for brevity, 'ADJ'). The appeal so preferred by respondents No.1 to 4 was disposed off, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties, vide judgment and decree dtd. 17/1/2020.

(3.) The applicant/appellant - Ramesh Kumar Bansal is aggrieved of the judgment and decree dtd. 17/1/2020, disposed off, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the respondents herein. The grievance of the applicant-appellant is that even though he was a necessary party in the civil suit before the Court below, he was not impleaded as such and the appeal disposed off, on the basis of a compromise by concealment of material facts, misrepresentation and a fraud played upon the First Appellate Court.