VED PAL (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.versusPREM DEVI (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

1052            SUPREME COURT
                         [2018] REPORTS
                                9 S.C.R. 1052                [2018] 9 S.C.R.


 A                   VED PAL (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
                                         v.
                   PREM DEVI (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 8353 of 2014)
 B                              AUGUST 10, 2018
       [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
              Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O. XXIII, r.3-A and s.96(3) –
       High Court disposed of the second appeal in terms of the alleged
       compromise arrived at between the parties and decreed the suit –
 C
       Review application filed by appellants, dismissed – Held: High
       Court did not examine the plea of the appellants properly keeping
       in view the facts alleged in the application and observed that the
       appellants are free to take recourse to other legal remedies –
       O. XXIII, r.3-A bars filing of the suit, while s.96(3) prohibits filing
 D     of any appeal, thus, legislative intent does not allow the parties to
       take recourse to these legal remedies to challenge the compromise
       once it is arrived at in the suit/appeal – Order passed in review
       petition set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for deciding the
       review application afresh.
 E           Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
              HELD: 1.1 The appellants are permitted to file an
       application before the High Court for amending their review
       petition, filed in disposed of second appeal, raising all their
       grievances against the manner in which the second appeal came
 F     to be disposed of in the light of alleged compromise, to enable
       the High Court to decide the review petition afresh. In this case,
       this course is followed keeping in view the bar contained in Order
       23 Rule 3-A of the CPC for filing the suit in a case of this nature
       and also another bar created under Section 96 (3) of the CPC,
       which prohibits filing of any appeal, though in this case it does
 G     not apply because the dispute arose in second appeal filed under
       Section 100 of the CPC. The legislative intent does not allow the
       parties to take recourse to these legal remedies to challenge the
       compromise once it is arrived at in the suit/appeal. The only
       exception being if the challenge is founded on the ground of fraud
 H
                                       1052
   VED PAL (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS. v. PREM DEVI (D)                       1053
                 THROUGH LRS & ORS.

committed by the parties in obtaining any judicial orders, the suit,     A
in appropriate case, may lie. [Paras 6-8] [1054-E-H; 1055-A]
      1.2 In this case, the High Court did not examine the plea
of the appellants properly keeping in view the facts alleged in
the application and while negativing the attack observed that the
appellants are free to take recourse to any other legal remedies.        B
Since the second appeal was disposed of affecting the rights of
the parties in the light of compromise, the proper forum to re-
examine the issue is the High Court, which disposed of the second
appeal rather than any other forum to examine the issue at this
stage. It is more so when the High Court did not go into the
details in the proceedings filed by the appellants in its correct        C
perspective. [Para 9] [1055-B-C]
       1.3 The impugned order passed in Review Petition is set
aside and the High Court is requested to decide the matter afresh
on merits in accordance with law. The appellants are at liberty to
amend the review petition or/and file fresh application raising all      D
legally permissible grounds to attack the order impugned therein.
The respondents too are at liberty to raise objections in
accordance with law. [Paras 11, 13] [1055-D-E, F-G]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8353
of 2014                                                                  E

      From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2006 and 29.01.2007
of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 4576
of 2003 and Review Application No. 75-C of 2006 respectively
      Akshat Goel, Manoj Swarup, Vivek Sharma, Anshul Garg, Yash         F
Pal Dhingra, Rajshekhar Rao, Abhinav Mukerji, Chaitanya Puri, Ms.
Gauri Puri, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against the final judgment and order dated 26.09.2006 passed by the      G
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.4576 of
2003 whereby the High Court disposed of the second appeal in terms of
the compromise arrived at between the parties and decreed the suit.
Against the said order, the appellants herein filed Review Application
                                                                         H
1054             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 9 S.C.R.


 A     No.75-C of 2006 in R.S.A. No.4576 of 2003 which was dismissed by
       the High Court by order dated 29.01.2007.
             2. Few facts need to be mentioned for the disposal of this appeal.
              3. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein filed second appeal before the
       High Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2003 passed
 B     by the First Appellate Court which arose out of judgment/decree dated
       31.03.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in a civil suit filed
       for a declaration and permanent injunction. The appellants herein were
       arrayed as respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the second appeal out of which this
       appeal arises.
 C            4. The Single Judge of the High Court, however, by impugned
       order dated 26.09.2006 disposed of the second appeal in the light of
       compromise, which is said to have been arrived at between the parties.
       In other words, the second appeal was not decided on merits but disposed
       of in the light of compromise arrived at between the parties.
 D            5. The appellants herein felt aggrieved by the disposal of the
       second appeal and filed review petition but it was dismissed which has
       given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave against
       the order of disposing of the appeal and dismissing the review petition.
               6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
 E     of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and
       set aside the order passed in the review petition and permit the appellants
       to file an application before the High Court for amending their review
       petition, filed in disposed of second appeal, raising all their grievances
       against the manner in which the second appeal came to be disposed of
 F     in the light of alleged compromise to enable the High Court to decide the
       review petition afresh.
              7. In this case, we prefer to follow this course keeping in view
       the bar contained in Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure,
       1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) for filing the suit in a case of this nature and
       also another bar created under Section 96 (3) of the CPC, which prohibits
 G
       filing of any appeal, though in this case it does not apply because the
       dispute arose in second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC.
              8. The purpose in making reference to these two provisions is to
       show the legislative intent which does not allow the parties to take recourse
       to these legal remedies to challenge the compromise once it is arrived at
 H
   VED PAL (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS. v. PREM DEVI (D)                                1055
   THROUGH LRS & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

in the suit/appeal. The only exception being if the challenge is founded          A
on the ground of fraud committed by the parties in obtaining any judicial
orders, the suit, in appropriate case, may lie.
       9. In this case, we find that the High Court did not examine the
plea of the appellants properly keeping in view the facts alleged in the
application and while negativing the attack observed that the appellants          B
are free to take recourse to any other legal remedies. Since the second
appeal was disposed of affecting the rights of the parties in the light of
compromise, the proper Forum to re-examine the issue, in our opinion, is
the High Court, which disposed of the second appeal rather than any
other Forum to examine the issue at this stage. It is more so when we
find that the High Court did not go into the details in the proceedings           C
filed by the appellants in its correct perspective.
       10. It is for this reason, we decline to examine the several factual
and legal issues urged by the parties in this appeal and leave these issues
for the High Court to examine afresh on merits in accordance with law
and dispose of the same.                                                          D

      11. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned
order dated 29.01.2007 passed in Review Petition is set aside and the
High Court is requested to decide the matter afresh on merits in
accordance with law without being influenced by any of our observations
on merits which we have refrained from entering into them having formed           E
an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for its disposal.
       12. Needless to observe, in case, the learned Judge, who disposed
of the second appeal, is not available to decide the matter, as directed by
this Court, the matter be placed before the appropriate Bench keeping in
view the provisions of Order 47 Rules 1 and 5 of the CPC read with the            F
High Court Rules governing disposal of the review cases.
       13. The appellants are at liberty to amend the review petition or/
and file fresh application raising all legally permissible grounds to attack
the order impugned therein. The respondents too are at liberty to raise
objections in accordance with law.                                                G
Divya Pandey                                             Appeal partly allowed.




                                                                                  H