DEVI AGARWAL Vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 9.9.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 5068 of 2012 in and by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant rejecting the prayer of the appellants to quash the order dated 14.8.2012 passed by Sub -Judge -IX, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 212 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the Sub -Judge -IX, Ranchi rejected the compromise petition filed by the parties and proceeded to decide the dispute between the parties through regular trial on the merit of the case. The facts of the case, leading to filing of this Letters Patent Appeal, in brief, are as under:

(2.) A Partition Suit No. 212 of 2006 (Annexure -2) was filed in the Court of Sub -Judge -IX, Ranchi by plaintiffs [namely, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and one Most. Pramila Devi (not party here)] against defendants, [namely, respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 and husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4]. The said Partition Suit is still pending. During the pendency of the said Partition Suit a joint petition of compromise was filed in the above Suit on 24.3.2009 (Annexure -3) and it is stated by the appellants that the said compromise petition has been duly signed by defendant No. 2 (husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4), respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 and plaintiff No. 2 (not party here). Thereafter, a withdrawal application was filed by the 3rd defendant (respondent No. 9 herein) on 10.12.2009 seeking withdrawal of the compromise petition. On 23.3.2010 (Annexure -7), an application was filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 8 before the Court below praying therein that the compromise petition be given effect to, except few. Thereafter, the father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4, filed a petition on 2.3.2012 (Annexure -8) before the Court below praying therein to decree the suit in terms of the compromise dated 24.3.2009, which was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 14.8.2012.

(3.) WHEN the matter came up for admission, we directed the learned counsel for the appellants to advance argument on the question of maintainability of the appeal.