Sk. Nasim vs Rokiya Bibi And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12356 Ori

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 11-Oct-2023 14:26:33


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                   CMP No. 1149 of 2023
                               Sk. Nasim                                          ....          Petitioner
                                                                        Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Advocate
                                                               -versus-
                               Rokiya Bibi and others                             ....      Opp. Parties
                                                               Mr. Dwarika Prasad Mohanty, Advocate
                                                                     (For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2)

                                           CORAM:
                                           JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                                          ORDER

         Order No.                                       10.10.2023
            2.            1.       This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. In course of argument, Mr. Baug, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision in the case of Triloki Nath Singh Vs. Anirudh Singh (dead) through Legal Representatives and others, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 629, wherein, it is held as under :-

"2. In other words, the appellant can only claim through his predecessor Sampatiya, to the extent of rights and remedies available to Sampatiya in reference to the compromise decree. Merely because the appellant was not party to the compromise decree in the facts of the present case, will be of no avail to the appellant, much less give him a cause of action to question the validity of the compromise decree passed by the High Court by way of a substantive suit before the civil Court to declare it as fraudulent, illegal and not binding on him. Assuming, he could agitate about the validity of the compromise entered into by the parties to the partition suit, it is only the High Court, who had accepted the compromise and passed decree on that basis, could examine the same and no other Court under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC. It must, therefore, follow that the suit instituted before the civil Court by the appellant was not maintainable in view

Signature Not Verified // 2 // Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 11-Oct-2023 14:26:33

of specific bar under Rule 3A of Order 23 CPC as held in the impugned judgment."

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Parties prays for an adjournment to go through the aforesaid decision and make submission on the same.

4. Put up this matter on 18th October, 2023 for further hearing.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

s.s.satapathy