9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the maintainability of a suit challenging a compromise decree passed by a revenue court under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure in such cases. Issue 1: Maintainability of the suit before a civil court The Appellant filed a suit seeking to declare a decree passed by the Assistant Collector as fraudulent and not binding. The Defendants contended that the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court. The Munsif initially held the suit was not maintainable, but the Additional District Judge allowed an appeal stating that the suit was based on fraudulent grounds, making it suitable for a civil court. However, the Defendants later raised a new objection under Order XXIII Rule 3-A, which was dismissed by the Munsif but upheld by the High Court. Issue 2: Applicability of Order XXIII Rule 3-A Order XXIII Rule 3-A prohibits the institution of a separate suit to set aside a decree based on a compromise that was not lawful. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi, which clarified the purpose of the rule and emphasized the need to question compromises before the court that recorded them. While the High Court relied on this rule to declare the suit not maintainable, the Supreme Court highlighted that revenue courts lack the expertise to handle fraud allegations with criminal implications. The Court held that the civil court has inherent jurisdiction to try civil disputes unless expressly barred, and Order XXIII Rule 3-A does not prevent suits challenging decrees from limited jurisdiction authorities. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision on the suit's maintainability. The case was directed to be restored before the Munsif for expedited resolution, emphasizing the need to address the issue promptly after being stuck for 31 years. No costs were awarded in the appeal.
|
