( 1 ) 924-WP-15357-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 924 WRIT PETITION NO. 15357 OF 2023 Sattar Baig Akhtar Baig Mirza Through Special Poa Mohd Shahrukh Mohd Khalil VERSUS Sambhaji Rajaram Kale And Others ….. Mr. A. A. Yadkikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. G. N. Chincholkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. A. D. Hande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 8 to 11. ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026. PC :- 1. It is a fact that the petitioner was not a party to the suit that was filed between the present respondents for specific performance. The petitioner contends that he had developed an interest in the suit property and, hence, with an apprehension that the result of the suit may adversely affect his interest, an application was moved under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial Court. The trial Court acknowledges the application and called for a reply from the other side. 2. However, before the application could be decided, the disputing parties to the suit entered into a compromise, and the suit came to be disposed of on Kiran Kawre 2026:BHC-AUG:40012 ( 2 ) 924-WP-15357-2023 the basis of a compromise decree. The petitioner has naw grievance about the compromise decree. As per his contention, there is an embargo in the Code of Civil Procedure that an outsider person cannot challenge the decree and hence, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the decree itself in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Yadkikar, learned advocate for the petitioner, relied on Section 96 as also Rule III-A of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code. He would submits that, in the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner is remediless. The petitioner would be ready to file an appeal however, according to him the law forbids such rights. As such, he placed reliance on the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh Vs. Anirudh Singh & Ors1. 4. Mr. Yadkikar submits that the decree could be questioned only in the present writ petition. To that, Mrs. Chincholkar, appearing for respondent No.1, relies upon the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) Vs. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj & Ors2. She submits that paragraph No.15 of the said judgment is a complete and direct answer to the question formulated by the petitioner for himself. She would then submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 1 (2020) 6 SCC 629 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 930 Kiran Kawre ( 3 ) 924-WP-15357-2023 observed that a person who is not a party to the suit but whose rights are affected by the consent decree has to approach the appellate Court under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, however, by obtaining leave. Mrs. Chincholkar thus submits that the law does not forbid such a third person from challenging even a compromise decree, provided that leave is obtained from the appellate Court. She submits that in view of this, the petitioner has a remedy to file an appeal by seeking appropriate leave before the concerned appellant forum. 5. Now the last argument of Mr. Yadkikar, learned advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be treated as a party who is absolutely a foreigner to the suit. His bone of contention is that, since the application under Order I Rule 10 is already preferred, the petitioner might be precluded from taking recourse to Section 96. 6. I do not agree with such contention. Merely filing of an application under Order I Rule 10 for getting impleaded as a party defendant to the suit by itself does not constitute such person as a party to the suit within the meaning of the Code. 7. In view of this, I subscribe to the argument advanced by Mrs. Chincholkar that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakina Sultanali Sunesara case (supra), the petitioner has an appropriate Kiran Kawre ( 4 ) 924-WP-15357-2023 remedy to file an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code provided that, leave is obtained form the appellate forum. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 8. Mr. Yadkikar submits that the petitioner is protected under the order of this Court order dated 21 December 2023. Considering the tenure of the interim relief which is in operation till today, I deem it appropriate to continue the interim relief for a further period of eight weeks from today. 9. In view of this, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 10. It is clarified that all contentions of the parties are kept open, including the petitioner’s contention about conclusion of the suit without passing an appropriate order on his application. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] Kiran Kawre