Civil Revision petition challenging an order dismissing applications to recall a compromise decree allegedly obtained by fraud. The High Court held the application maintainable, set aside the lower court order, and directed retrial.
Impugned order set aside; trial Court directed to proceed with matter; parties directed to appear on 01.12.2009.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2386 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision 23.10.2009
Jugal Kishore Somani and another
...... Petitioners
VERSUS
Banwari son of Bhagirath
...... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Suman Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.
A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):
The petitioner has filed this petition against the orders dated 03.05.1983 and 23.01.2007, passed by Senior Sub Judge and Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, respectively.
Four petitions were filed for recalling the judgments and decrees dated 03.05.1983, passed by Senior Sub Judge, Hisar, on the grounds that the defendants Gulab Singh & Sagar Mal sons of Moti Lal; Ram Parshad and Ram Niwas sons of Premsukh Dass and Laxmi Narain son of Manak Ram against whom the decree was obtained, had already died prior to the passing of the judgments and decrees. All the four petitions were dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar on 23.01.2007 which were challenged by way of Civil Revision Nos.2385, 2386, 2387 and 2388 of 2007. This Court vide order dated 10.11.2008 had accepted all the revision petitions except the present one. This Court, while accepting these revision petitions observed that the applications, filed by the
-2-
Civil Revision No.2386 of 2007(O&M)
petitioners before the Lower Court were maintainable and they were not required to file a separate suit. It has also been observed that in case Ram
Kishan and others vs. Sardari Devi and others 2003 (1) Civil Court
Cases 11 that the suit challenging the compromise decree on the ground that it was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud was maintainable. A similar view was taken in case Dev Sarup and others vs. Veena Nirwani and others 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 738 .
As such, no hesitation could be made while forming an opinion that the application for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1983 obtained by way of compromise, which was unlawful, could be challenged by filing an application for recalling the order.
Resultantly, this petition is accepted; the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 01.12.2009.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge
23.10.2009 mamta-II
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application filed for recalling a compromise decree obtained by fraud is maintainable.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for recalling the decree requires to be set aside.
Whether the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Kishan and others vs. Sardari Devi and othersExplained¶17
Ram Kishan and others vs. Sardari Devi and others 2003 (1) Civil Court Cases 11
Dev Sarup and others vs. Veena Nirwani and othersExplained¶18
Dev Sarup and others vs. Veena Nirwani and others 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 738
Jugal Kishore Somani and another
Banwari son of Bhagirath
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
