Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan vs Bapusingh (Deced) Through Lrs Smt ... on 16 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10065
1 CR-228-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CIVIL REVISION No. 228 of 2015
MOHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
BAPUSINGH (DECED) THROUGH LRS SMT KALABAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Phadke - advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anushka Bhargava Pl appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Rishi Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Heard On: 12.03.2025
Delivered On:16.04.2025
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present civil revision under Section 115
of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.07.2015 passed in Civil
Suit No.02/2014 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Dhar whereby the learned Court
below has set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2012 which was
based on the compromise.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 had filed a suit for
partition in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey nos.10, 22, 122, 124
and 143 situated at village Pachlana, Tehsil and District Dhar. The said suit
was filed by the non-applicant no.1 on the averment that the aforesaid lands
were the ancestral land of Late Mayaram who was the father of applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10065
2 CR-228-2015
no.1 and respondent no.2 and grandfather of applicant nos.2 and 3. The said
suit was contested by the parties and written statements were filed.
3. During the pendency of the suit, respondent no.1 entered into a
compromise with the applicants which was reduced in the writing and
submitted before the learned trial court on 26.11.2012. In pursuance to the
said, the statements of the parties were recorded by learned trial Court on the
compromise application and the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree
dated 01.12.2012 accepted the compromise and passed the judgment and
decree based on the compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. Later on, on 31.01.2013, respondent no.1 has filed a suit for setting
aside the aforesaid compromise decree passed on 01.12.2012. The said suit
was however, transferred to the same Court from which the compromise
decree was passed and while transferring the suit, the learned District Judge
has observed that the suit should be treated as an application under Section
151 of CPC and therefore, in compliance of the order dated 03.02.2014, the
application was treated under Section 151 of CPC and finally, the learned
trial Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2012 vide the
impugned judgment. Hence, the present revision petition before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial
Court has committed grave illegality in holding that the compromise decree
to be unlawful when the same was in consonance with law and based on the
legal agreement between the parties. The findings of learned trial Court that
the compromise decree is included a Government Land, is completely
perverse whereas the decree passed by learned trial Court was only with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10065
3 CR-228-2015
regard to the ancestral land of the parties. Further, the learned trial Court has
committed an error of law in giving the findings that the compromise has
been decreed in absence of signature of applicant no.2 Prakash. It is further
submitted that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in treating
the application under Section 151 of CPC as an appeal and thereafter allowed
the same by setting the compromise decree between the parties. Hence, prays
for setting aside the impugned judgment.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed
the prayer and supported the impugned judgment passed by learned trial
Court. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the petitioners
alongwith the counsel before the learned trial Court have taken the signatures
of the respondent before the trial Court on the compromise, the learned trial
court has rightly set aside the compromise decree. Counsel for the
respondent has also submitted that since, the respondent was illiterate, the
petitioners have compromised with him with regard to the Choukidari land
also, which is clearly against the settled provisions of law. It is further
submitted that the said compromise before the learned trail Court was
exparte compromise without presence of the counsel for the respondent and
the learned trial Court prior to setting aside the compromise decree, has
taken the statements of the counsel who was appearing on behalf of the
respondent i.e Suresh Rajpurohit (PW-2) who has clearly stated that the
compromise was signed by the respondent in his absence and the respondent
(Bapusing (deceased) has told to PW-2 that some persons have forced him to
give the signatures. Further, it is also submitted that DW-1 Mohan has also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10065
4 CR-228-2015
admitted in his statements that since, the respondent Bapusing was illiterate,
therefore, no survey numbers were told to him at the time of compromise,
even he has admitted that they have not told about the area of land also to the
respondent, therefore, looking to the said statements of the witnesses, the
learned trial Court has set aside the compromise decree by holding that the
the appellants have placed the compromise wrongfully and included the
Govt. land also. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. From the bare perusal of the impugned order, statements of the
witnesses as well as the compromise decree, this Court has finds that the the
factum of illiteracy of the respondent Bapu Singh is admitted by the
petitioners. Further, as per the compromise decree, the petitioners have not
only included the Govt. land but also included the Choukidari land in the
said compromise which is clear violation of the settled provisions of law.
Even otherwise, the learned trial court has taken the statements of the
counsel who was appearing on behalf of the respondent i.e Suresh Rajpurohit
(PW-2) who has clearly stated that the compromise was signed by the
respondent in his absence and the respondent (Bapu Singh (deceased) has
told to PW-2 that some persons have forced him to give the signatures.
Further, it is also admitted by Mohan DW-1 (the petitioner) in his statements
that since, the respondent Bapu Singh was illiterate, therefore, no survey
numbers were told to him at the time of compromise, even he has admitted
that they have not told about the area of land also to the respondent and this
statement is unrebutted before the trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10065
5 CR-228-2015
9. It is worth mentioning that this revision petition has been filed under
Section 115 of CPC. The principle of revisionary power of this Court are
applicable in the present revision also. While examining the correctness of
the finding, the High Court could not act as a court of Appeal and re-
appreciate evidence to come to its own conclusion. [See: Gangadharan vs.
Shantaram Lokre, 1994 JLJ 408].
10. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "The power of
revision is not restricted to the narrow limits of section 115, CPC but it is not
as wide as that of an appeal and the indication is that an attempt should be
made to keep as near as possible to the limits of the power of revision under
Section 115, CPC exceeding the same only to the extent necessary for
preventing miscarriage of justice. [See; B. Johnson vs. C.S. Naidu AIR 1986
MP 72]
11. In view of the aforesaid principles, the matter has been further
scrutinized. Actually, as per Section 23 Rule 3-A of the Act, the suit is
barred to set aside a decree on the ground of compromise, when the
compromise on which the decree is based, was not lawful. However, this
provision empowers the same Court to consider and to recall the
compromise decree as and when required. As per this provision, all parties
can questioned the compromise before the Court which has recorded the
same and passed the decree in accordance therewith. Secondly, there is
second remedy of appeal under Section 96(1) of CPC against the
compromise decree.[See: Gopal Lal vs. Babulal AIR 2004 Raj. 264].
12. As such, the power used by same Court with regard to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10065
6 CR-228-2015
sanctity of compromise cannot be disputed. Hence, the order of learned trial
court setting aside the compromise decree by holding that the appellants
have placed the compromise illegally and included the Govt. as well as
Choukidari land, does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the civil
revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands closed.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
