PRAMEELA GURUNG Vs. URMILA MANGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions arise for consideration in the present revision petition. An application for setting aside the compromise deed entered between the parties in Title Suit No. 12 of 2018 and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Civil Misc. Case No.14 of 2020 was rejected. The revisionist seeks to assail the same under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The proviso to Sec. 115 of the CPC prohibits this Court from varying or reversing any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. The revisionist submits that as the Pension Act, 1871 provided that the pension would be paid to the wife of the deceased person, the respondents who were not legally wedded wives would not be entitled to the same as such the compromised deed entered between the revisionist and the respondents was liable to be set aside as being barred by law. Thus, in the facts of the present case the two questions which arises are:

(2.) The revisionist seeks to assail the Order dtd. 13/4/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Civil Misc. Case No.14 of 2020 rejecting the application filed by the revisionist under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC holding that the compromise deed dtd. 19/12/2019 is not in contravention to the provisions of Sec. 4 and Sec. 11 of the Pension Act, 1871 and that the compromise deed is not void and unlawful. The revisionist also seeks the setting aside of the compromise decree passed in Title Suit Case No. 12 of 2018 as being unlawful.

(3.) In the year 2018 Title Suit case No. 12 of 2018 was filed by the respondent no.2 against the respondent no.1. In the said suit an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was filed by the respondent no.1 to implead the revisionist, which was allowed. The parties to the present revision petition claimed to be the wives of late Kumar Thapa. During the proceedings of the Title Suit the matter was referred to mediation vide Order dtd. 5/9/2019. The matter was amicably settled between the parties. A compromise deed dtd. 19/12/2019 was entered between them. The Title Suit was thereafter, disposed of by the learned Trial Judge on 27/2/2020 pursuant to which a decree was passed. The respondent no.1 thereafter, filed Civil Execution Case No. 10 of 2020. It was at this stage after receipt of summons from the executing court that the revisionist moved an application under the proviso of Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC for setting aside the compromise deed as being unlawful and barred by law. The revisionist therefore prayed that the compromise entered between her and the respondents as well as the decree and order dtd. 27/2/2020 be set aside and further the Title Suit may be restored to its stage prior to the compromise/settlement. By the impugned Order dtd. 13/4/2022 this application of the revisionist was rejected. The revisionist thereafter, filed the present revision petition seeking to invoke the powers of this Court under Sec. 115 of the CPC.