Writ petition challenging the dismissal of a petition under Art. 227 to set aside a compromise decree based on alleged fraud. The court held no material irregularity after scrutinizing evidence where the petitioner previously accepted the compromise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7766 of 2015
====================================================== Ravindra Nath Pd. Verma S/o Late Mukhdeo Prasad Verma, R/o MohallaDaudpur Kothi, P.O. M.I.T. P.S. Brahmpura, District- Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus Raghunath Prasad Verma, S/o Late Mukhdeo Prasad Verma, R/o MohallaDaudpur Kothi, P.O. M.I.T. P.S. Brahmpura, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT
2 03-07-2015 Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, the learned counsel for petitioner in the interlocutory application as well as on the merits of this writ application.
Calling in question the legal acceptability of the impugned order dated 06.09.2014 dismissing the Misc. Case No.
14 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for setting aside the compromised decree passed in the suit, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner filed the suit for declaration that the
sale deed dated 05.01.2007 executed by the petitioner (plaintiff) in favour of the respondent (defendant) in respect of schedule-4 property was forged and fabricated document and the defendant on
Patna High Court CWJC No.7766 of 2015 (2) dt.03-07-2015
2
that basis had not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit property. The aforesaid suit was disposed of on 25.08.2009 in terms of the compromise between the parties. The said order dated 25.08.2009 has been annexed as Annexure-1. From the perusal of this order, it is evident that the court examined the plaintiff and defendant on the point of compromise and they had accepted the said compromise before the court. The plaintiff-petitioner after lapse of more than 3 years filed the petition on 30th December 2012 asserting that the compromise was obtained by playing fraud upon the petitioner and prayed for setting aside the compromise decree on that basis. After hearing the parties by the impugned order, the learned court below has rejected the said petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions on the basis of the assertions made in the petition and has urged that the learned court below has committed material irregularity and error of jurisdiction in rejecting the petition.
After careful consideration of the facts and submission, it is pellucid that the suit filed by the plaintiffpetitioner was disposed of in terms of the compromise by order dated 25.08.2009. After lapse of about three years, the petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid compromise on the ground of fraud played upon him in obtaining the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7766 of 2015 (2) dt.03-07-2015
3
compromise. The learned court below has elaborately considered the objections raised by the petitioner and has also taken particular notice of the fact that the petitioner had made statement in the suit, before recording of the compromise, where he accepted the fact of the compromise. It has also been found that the affidavit was also filed by the petitioner in the suit in support of the said compromise.
After elaborate scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned court below has declined to accept the challenge of the petitioner to the compromise. This Court does not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order.
The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J)
Devendra/-
U
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Nath Pd. Verma
Raghunath Prasad Verma
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
