LexHORIL versus KESHAV & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 1 HORIL v. KESHAV & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 776 of 2012) JANUARY 20, 2012 [AFTAB ALAM ANO RANJANA PRASAD DESAI, JJ.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.XX/II, r.3-A - Suit - Maintainability -Appellant filed suit seeking declaration that decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Class-I, in a suit u/ C ss. 176, 178 and 182 of the Land Reforms Act was fraudulent, inoperative and not binding upon him - Allegation that decree passed by Assistant Collector was based on a fraudulent compromise petition - Defendants-respondents questioned the maintainability of the suit - Whether suit filed by appellant o was barred in terms of Order XX/II Rule 3-A CPC - Held: A compromise forming the basis of the decree can only be questioned before the same court that recorded the compromise and a fresh suit for setting aside a compromise decree is expressly barred under Order XX/II Rule 3-A - E However, in the instant case, the compromise decree alleged to be fraudulent was passed not by a civil court but by a revenue court in a suit u/s. 176 of the Land Reforms Act - Revenue courts are neither equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on allegations of fraud that has F overtones of criminality and the courts really skilled and experienced to try such issues are the courts constituted under the CPC - Further, under s. 9 of CPC, the civil court has inherent jurisdiction to try all types of civil disputes unless its jurisdiction is barred expressly or by necessary implication, G by any statutory provision and conferred on any other tribunal or authority - Nothing in Order XX/II Rule 3-A bars the institution of a suit before the civil court even in regard to decrees or orders passed in suits and/or proceedings under 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A different statutes before a court, tribunal or authority of limited anc;f restricted jurisdiction - In the facts of the case, provision of Order XX/fl not a bar against the suit filed by the appellant ,- Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, B 1950 7" ss. 176, 178, 182, 331 and 341 and Schedule II. The appellant filed suit seeking a declaration that the decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Class-I, in a suit under sections 176,. t78 and 182 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 was fraudulent, C inoperative and not binding upon him. It was alleged that the dec.ree passed by the Assistant Collector was based on a fraudulent compromise petition. The defendants- respondents questioned the maintainability of the suit raising the contention that it was barred under the . provisions of Order XX.Ill Rule 3-A of CPC. The trial court · D dismissed the objection and held that the suit was maintainable. The defendants-respondents took the matter in revision which was dismissed by the District . Judge. The respondents thereafter filed writ petition before the High Court which allowed the same holding E that .the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable being barred in terms of Order XX.Ill Rule 3-A CPC. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A compromise forming the basis of the F decree can only be questioned before the same court that recorded the compromise and a fresh suit for setting aside a compromise decree is expressly barred under Order XX.Ill Rule 3-A. The expression "not lawful" used in Rule 3-A of Order XX.Ill also covers a decree based on G a fraudulent compromise hence, a challenge to a compromise decree on the ground that it was obtained by fraudulent means would also fall under the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order XX.Ill. [Para 6] [6-H; 7-A] H 1.2. However, a significant distinguishing feature in HORIL v. KESHAV & ANR. 3 this case is that the compromise decree which is alleged A to be fraudulent and which is sought to be· declared as nullity was passed not by a civil court but by a revenue court in a suit under section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. [Para 8] [9-8-C] B Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi (1993) 1 SCC 581: 1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 524 - distinguished. · · 2.1. Section 331 of the U.P. Zaniindari Abol.ition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 bars the jurisdiction of the civil court and provides that a suit under the Act can be C _entertained by no court other than that the courts specified in Schedule II to the Act. A refere".'ce to Schedule II would show that the court of original jurisdictio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.