Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 An application under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908. Bijaya Kumar Pani *** … Appellant. -VERSUS- Basanti Panda (dead) represented through L.Rs. & Others … Respondents. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Patnaik, Advocate For the Respondents : D.P. Mohanty, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e). P R E S E N T:
Legal Reasoning
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 25.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 Page 1 of 9 1. A joint compromise petition in the form of this I.A. has been filed jointly by the appellant and the LRs of the respondent No.1 i.e. respondent No.1(a) to 1(e) under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908 praying for disposing of the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 on the basis of the same, because, as per previous order dated 14.11.2025 passed in I.A. No.1186 of 2025, the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was dismissed against the respondent Nos.2 to 10 under Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 due to the abandonment of the claim of the appellant against them. For which, since 14.11.2025, the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was continuing between the appellant and the LRs of the respondent No.1 i.e. respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e). 2. The appellant in the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was the defendant No.6 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.31/1996 and appellant before the learned First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.9/13 of 1998/2003. The respondent No.1 in the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was the sole plaintiff before the learned Trial I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 Page 2 of 9 Court and he was the respondent No.1 before the learned First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.9/13 of 1998/2003. After the death of the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) in T.A. No.9/13 of 1998/2003, his LRs have been substituted as respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e). 3. The suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1996 was a suit for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 6 stating in the plaint that, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 have no right, title and interest over the suit properties and they are the illegal possessor thereof. For which, the decree for recovery of possession and permanent injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos.1 to 6 as per the Judgment & Decree passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1996 and the said Judgment & Decree was confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.9/13 of 1998/2003. Then, 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was filed by the defendant No.6 against the plaintiff and other defendants. I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 Page 3 of 9 4. After abandonment of the 2nd Appeal by the appellant (defendant No.6) against his co-defendants i.e. defendant Nos.2 to 10, the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 was between him (appellant-defendant No.6) and the LRs of the plaintiff i.e. respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e). The defendant No.6 along with LRs of the plaintiff i.e. respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) filed joint compromise petition in the form of this I.A vide I.A. No.1187 of 2025 under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908 praying for the disposal of the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 on the basis of the terms and conditions indicated in the joint compromise petition vide I.A. No.1187 of 2025 treating the same as a part of the decree in the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004. Each parties in this I.A. has filed their affidavits independently and separately stating that, the contents of this I.A. under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908 are correct and the learned counsels of both the sides i.e. appellant (defendant No.6) and respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) (LRs of the plaintiff) submitted that, the contents of the I.A. are all I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 Page 4 of 9 correct, to which, I perused and it was found the same as lawful. For which, there is no impediment under law to disallow this I.A. No.1187 of 2025 under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908 filed by the appellant and respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(e). 5. The terms and conditions of the compromise petition, it has been specifically indicated in Clause-B and C that, “The right, title, interest and possession of the Appellant (defendant No.6) in respect of the properties described in the schedule below of the I.A. is declared and Respondent No. 1(a) to 1 (e) undertake not to enforce the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned trial court i.e. the Civil Judge (S.D.) Kamakhyanagar in T.S. No.31 of 1996 in their favour in any manner what so ever. Thus the Respondent Nos.1 (a) to 1(e) hereby relinquish their right if any in the suit property as described in the schedule below in favour of the Appellant (defendant No.6). As a gesture of good will the Appellant hereby pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only to the contesting Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1 (e) (successors of plaintiff) who also hereby acknowledge receipt of the same and it is hereby agreed that, pursuant to the decree passed by this Hon’ble court in the present Regular Second Appeal on compromise, the Appellant (defendant No.6) shall be at liberty to correct the revenue papers and mutate his name in respect of I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 Page 5 of 9 the property mentioned in the schedule in his own name before the revenue and municipal authorities.” 6. The above terms and conditions indicated in the joint compromise petition vide I.A. No.1187 of 2025 is clearly and unambiguously going to show that, the appellant (defendant No.6) had no pre-existing title over the suit properties and his title in respect of the suit properties is to be created for the first time on the basis of the compromise decree passed in the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 arising out of the suit vide T.S. No.31 of 1996. Therefore, as per law, unless the compromise decree will be registered, the same cannot given effect to or the same will not have any binding affect on the parties. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: I. In a case between Mukesh Vs. State of M.P. & Another decided in Civil Appeal No.14808 of 2024 that a compromise decree shall not be registered when there will be pre-existing right in favour of the party in whose favour the same passed on the basis of compromise over the properties and the compromise should not create the right for the first time. II. In a case between Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major reported in 1995 (5) SCC 709 that, if the compromise I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 Page 6 of 9 decree were to create for the first time right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- upwards in favour of any party to the suit, the compromise decree or order would require registration. III. In a case between Kishore Kumar Mohanty Vs. Saroj Kumar Mohanty & Others reported in 2018 (1) CLR 613 that, compromise decree creating right, title instead in immovable property, value of which more than 100 for the first time in favour of a party is required registration. (Para No.8) IV. In a case between Kishore Kumar Mohanty Vs. Saroj Kumar Mohanty & Others reported in 2017 (2) OLR 729 that, when in the instant case, compromise petition for the first time, right in immoveable property in favour of JDR No.2 is created and value of which is more than 100, decree would require registration. Direction issued for registration. In the event of non- registration of the compromise decree, the same shall not be given effect and the same shall not have any binding effect. 7. Here in this matter at hand, when on the basis of the joint compromise petition between the appellant (defendant No.6) and respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) (successors of plaintiff), the title in respect of the suit properties having value of more than Rs.100 is created for the first time in favour of the appellant (defendant No.6), then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the joint compromise petition vide this I.A. No.1187 I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 Page 7 of 9 of 2025 filed by the appellant and respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) (successors of plaintiff) is to be accepted subject to its enforceability only after registration of the same. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid findings and observations, the joint compromise petition under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC vide I.A. No.1187 of 2025, the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A.
Decision
No.306 of 2004 is disposed of as per Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC filed by the appellant and respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) on the basis of the terms and conditions thereof and the compromise petition vide this I.A. No.1187 of 2025 shall do form part of the Judgment & Decree of the 2nd Appeal vide R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 subject to the enforceability of this joint compromise decree on the basis of I.A. No.1187 of 2025 between the appellant and respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) only after its registration making it clear that, in the event of non- registration of this joint compromise Decree of the parties, the same shall not be given effect to and the same shall not have any binding effect on the parties. I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 Page 8 of 9 9. On the basis of the aforesaid findings and observations, this I.A. as well as R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 are disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 23 .12. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 27-Dec-2025 14:57:56 I.A. No.1187 of 2025 arising out of R.S.A. No.306 of 2004 Page 9 of 9