MAHADEO LAL Vs. GOPAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application under the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant of Title Suit No. 19 of 2002 (Gopal Prasad & Another. Vs. Mahadev Lal & others), to set aside the appellate order dated 13.03.2004, passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in Misc. Appeal No.26 of 2002 (Gopal Prasad & others Vs. Mahadeo Lal & others), whereby the appeal has been allowed, the judgment of the learned trial court rejecting the compromise petition has been set aside, and the learned trial court has been directed to accept the compromise petition and dispose of the suit accordingly.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this civil revision application may be indicated. Title Suit No. 19 of 2002 was instituted for partition of the suit properties covering an area of 1 katha and 1 dhur with a three-storied building standing thereupon. The property was purchased in 1961, when the family was joint. Three branches of the joint family are occupying and living in three different floors of the building. The parties came to a compromise and filed a joint compromise petition in the suit to dispose of the same in terms of the compromise petition. Two of the sons of one branch filed an application objecting to the compromise petition which was upheld by judgment dated 09.10.2002, mainly on the ground that he was not a signatory to the compromise petition. Resultantly, the learned trial court has rejected the compromise petition and has further directed that the suit shall be tried on merits. The aggrieved parties preferred the aforesaid Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 2002, which has been allowed, the judgment of the learned trial court has been set aside, the learned trial court has been directed to accept the compromise petition and dispose of the suit accordingly.

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that this is a very small property and the three branches are occupying three different floors of the house independently and living peacefully. We are further of the view that the learned trial court had erred in rejecting the compromise petition on the ground that two sons of one branch were not signatory to the compromise petition. This was hardly a ground to reject a compromise petition in terms of the provisions of Order-XXIII, rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly in a situation where two sons are represented by their father who is a signatory to the compromise petition. Furthermore, no question of jurisdiction arises in this case. We are of the view that the compromise petition meets the requirements of Order XXIII, rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order.