Mushtaq Ahmad Lone vs Fahmeeda

The legal controversy which emerges out of this revision petition in nut shell is whether a person seeking impleadment as a party in the

proceedings/suit has a right to file revision petition, when his application seeking impleadment as a party under the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of

civil PC. was rejected by a compositE order by passing a decree on compromise?

The facts in brief which have given rise to the present petition are that a suit for declaration came to be filed before the court below by the

daughter/plaintiff against her father/ defendant declaring her to be the owner of land measuring 16 kanals. The defendants i.e. father of plaintiff

appeared before the court below and admitted the claim of the plaintiff and the suit came to be decreed accordingly on compromise.

The present petitioner, who is the brother of plaintiff and son of the defendant in the suit before the court below, filed an application for being

impleaded as a party to the suit and the said application seems to have been rejected by the trial court on 3091995 on the count that the same will

change the nature and character of the suit and will protract the proceedings. The court has further observed that the compromise has been placed

on record by the parties to the suit and their statements stand already recorded in support of the compromise. As per compromise the suit stands

decreed and the plaintiff has been declared to be the owner and in possession of suit property in view of the oral gift made by defendant in her

favour, and a decree of injunction also seems to have been passed against the defendant, restraining him from causing any interference with the suit

land.

Thus the court having found the compromise lawful and having acted upon the same, as is provided under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of

CPC, so the trial court has rightly acted upon the compromise and rejected the contention of the present petitioner to be joined as a party, which is

only aimed at to protract the proceedings, of the suit.

It may be noted that the person of the defendant i.e father of the plaintiff, under Mohammadan law is the sole authority of his property till he is

alive and the person of the petitioner who has to succeed to the property has only interest of succession after the death of the defendant. Till father

is alive, the legal heirs have no say in the disposal of the property made by the father.

Here in the present case, father seems to have made an oral gift and them coupled the said gift by a compromise arrived at in thecourt below.

I do not find that there is any procedural or jurisdictional error committed by the Sub Judge Budgam.in passing the order impugned in this

revision in view of the fact that at the relevant time, when compromise was already entered and acted upon in terms of provisions of law and

decree has been passed, no lis as per procedure is deemed to have beEn pending and as such, the application for impleadment was rightly

rejected. I am fortified in my view by Air 1967 SC 257.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. File be consigned to records. Records, if any

received from the court below be sent back.