9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the compromise order set aside by the Subordinate Judge. 2. Jurisdiction for appeal against the order setting aside the compromise. 3. Request for revisional jurisdiction by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment involves a Miscellaneous Appeal and a Civil Revision Application filed against an order by the Subordinate Judge setting aside a compromise order. The decree for mesne profits was initially obtained by Lachmi Narain Ojha, later purchased by Bhola Singh, and subsequently, his son and widow were substituted as decree-holders. The respondents alleged that they were unaware of the compromise filed by the judgment-debtors and sought to set it aside under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Subordinate Judge found the compromise to be collusive and fraudulent, setting it aside and directing the proceedings to continue against the judgment-debtors. 2. The preliminary objection raised by the decree-holders contended that no appeal lay against the order under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant argued that the order setting aside the compromise should be treated as an order refusing to record the compromise, making it appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 (m). However, the court held that an appeal does not lie against an order passed under Section 151 and that the effect of the order did not make it appealable under the relevant provisions of the Code. 3. The appellant further requested the court to intervene under its revisional jurisdiction, claiming errors in the Subordinate Judge's findings. The respondents argued that the matter was a question of fact without any jurisdictional error, thus not warranting revision. The court agreed with the respondents, dismissing the appeal and revision application after analyzing the evidence and affirming the Subordinate Judge's findings. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Subordinate Judge, ruling against the appellant's appeal and revision application. The judgment emphasized the limitations on appealability under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the court's reluctance to interfere in factual matters under revisional jurisdiction.
|
