Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010081812024 2025:GAU-AS:8391 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/50/2024 ETUA URANG AND 4 ORS S/O LATE MUKTI URANG, RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT, JYOTI NAGAR, TINSUKIA, PO, PS AND DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM 786125 2: SRI FAGU URANG @ PETRA URANG S/O LATE MUKTI URANG RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 3.1: ON THE DEATH OF MANGRU URANG HIS LEGAL HEIRS RANU BAKHLA (URANG) RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 3.2: SABITRI URANG RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 3.3: SANJAY URANG Page No.# 2/17 RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 3.4: PROMILA URANG RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 3.5: MONJU KHALKHO (URANG) RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 3.6: AJAY URANG RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 4: SMTI SUSHILA URANG W/O LATE NAMIR URANG RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 5: SRI RITIL URANG S/O SRI JITU URANG RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA PO Page No.# 3/17 PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 78612 VERSUS MAINA DEVI AGARWAL AND 6 ORS W/O SRI RAMESH AGARWAL RESIDENT OF S.R LOHIA ROAD, TINSUKIA TOWN, PO . PS AND DIST TINSUKIA, ASSAM 786125 2:SRI RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL S/O SRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL RESIDENT OF BHARAT BHUMIJ PATH PO AND PS DOOMDOOMA DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786151 3:SRI RAVI BANSAL S/O SRI RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL RESIDENT OF CHIRWAPATTY TINSUKIA TOWN PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 4:SRI SUMEET AGARWAL S/O SRI RAMESH AGARWAL RESIDENT OF CHIRWAPATTY TINSUKIA TOWN PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 5:SRI NIKITA GOEL D/O SRI SUSHIL KUMAR GOEL RESIDENT OF CHALIHA NAGAR TINSUKIA PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 6:SRI RAJESH URANG S/O SRI ETWA URANG RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA Page No.# 4/17 PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 786125 7:SMTI SABANA BEGUM W/O MD. NOOR ALAM RESIDENT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT JYOTI NAGAR TINSUKIA PO PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 78612 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. PS Deka Senior Advocate Mr. A Hussain Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. B Dutta, Senior Advocate Mr. S Deka Date of hearing & judgment : 19.06.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. PS Deka, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. B Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5, Mr. Parag J Saikia, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the Page No.# 5/17 respondent No.6 and Mr. AK Gupta, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.7. 2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging the order dated 05.02.2024 whereby the Misc.(J) Case No.49/2023, arising out of Title Suit No.36/2019 filed on the ground that the compromise decree dated 07.07.2022 so recorded by the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 36/2019 was illegal and fraudulent was dismissed. The question arises before this Court is as to whether the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia was justified in rejecting the application filed for recalling of the compromise decree vide the order dated 05.02.2024, passed in Misc.(J).Case No.49/2023. 3. Taking into account that this Court is exercising the power of revision, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to see as to whether the learned Trial Court had committed any error in exercise of its jurisdiction, or had exercised the jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. 4. To ascertain the said aspect of the matter, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present proceedings. Page No.# 6/17 5. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein as Plaintiffs have instituted a suit being Title Suit No.36/2019 against the petitioners herein seeking a declaration of the right, title and interest of the plaintiff No.1 in respect to the Schedule A land, plaintiff No.2 in respect to the Schedule B land, the plaintiff No.3 in respect to the Schedule C land and the plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 in respect to the Schedule D land; for recovery of the vacant and khas possession of the Schedule A, B, C and D lands by dismantling and removing the unauthorized and illegal construction made by the defendants after evicting the defendants, their dependents, etc. and for permanent injunction. 6. and for permanent injunction. 6. The defendants joined together and filed a written statement- cum-counter claim. The counter-claim filed by the defendants was seeking declaration that the Sale Deed No. 1325 dated 29.07.2013; Sale Deed 1326 dated 29.07.2013; Sale Deed No. 1369 dated 02.08.2013 and Sale Deed No. 1371 dated 02.08.2013 were null and void and unenforceable in law and for cancellation of the mutations so made on the basis of the said deeds of sale; for a declaration of the righs, title and interest of the defendant Nos.1 to 9/the counter claimants over the Schedule A, B, C and D lands etc. 7. It is relevant to take note of that the said written statement as well as the counter claim on behalf of the defendants was filed on the Page No.# 7/17 basis of verification and affidavit signed by Sri Rajesh Urang, who was the defendant No.1 in the said suit. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that on the date of filing of the written statement- cum-counter claim by the defendants, the defendant Nos.2 to 7 had executed a special power of attorney on the same date i.e. on 17.08.2019, empowering the defendant No.1 with the following powers, which are reproduced hereinunder: “1. To appear and represent us in Title Suit No.36 of 2019 pending in the court of Hon’ble Civil Judge, Tinsukia and take all necessary steps in the said suit/case as well as other proceeding arisen thereof as he has personal knowledge about the facts and circumstances of our aforesaid land 2. To file petitions, written statement, evidence-in-affidavit and face cross examination and take all steps in Title Suit No.36 of 2019 as well as other proceedings arisen thereon pending in the court of Hon’ble Civil Judge, Tinsukia. 3. To appoint any lawyer, attorney, any person in our names and on our behalf in respect of the aforesaid Title Suit No.36 of 2019 or in any other case/suit/appeal to be arisen out of the said suit. 4. To do all acts, deeds and things for protecting our interest in respect of our aforesaid land and do all acts, deeds and things for defending/protecting our claim in respect of the said suit. Generally for us, in our names and on our behalf to do all acts, deeds, matters and things as may be required to give full effect to these presents, according to the true intent and meaning of these presents. And we hereby ratifying and agreeing to ratify and confirm all acts, whatsoever our said attorney shall do or cause to be done by virtue of the powers hereby conferred.” Page No.# 8/17 8. The suit thereupon continued. On 07.07.2022, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants filed a joint compromise petition before the learned Trial Court, which was registered and numbered as Petition No.3402/2022. 9. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the attorney holder of the plaintiffs signed and verified the contents of the said joint compromise petition and on behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.1 for himself as well as on the basis of the power of attorney dated 17.08.2019 of the defendant Nos.2 to 7 had signed and verified the contents of the joint compromise petition. The supporting affidavits to the said joint compromise petition were filed by the power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs, as well as by the defendant No.1 and on behalf of the defendant Nos.2 to 7 by the defendant No.1, as their attorney holder. 10. A perusal of the said joint compromise petition shows that both the plaintiffs and the defendants have entered into a compromise containing various terms and conditions, which are enumerated in paragraph 3 of the said joint compromise petition. The said paragraph 3 of the joint compromise petition being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “3) That both the parties have decided to settle this suit on compromise and in pursuance of the negotiations as aforesaid and reduced the terms and conditions of compromise as hereunder. It is to be mentioned herein that Page No.# 9/17 there is another 2 Bighas of land on the Eastern Boundary of the aforesaid Suit Land and the plaintiffs have agreed that they shall not claim any interest over the said 2 Bighas of land, which is not part of the Suit Land. The said land is under occupation of defendant No.7. i) That the plaintiffs will pay Rs.42,00,000/- as a compensation to the defendants as a consideration for waiving their rights over the land measuring 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 4 Lessas. ii) That the defendants have agreed that on receipt of the said amount they shall handover the possession of land measuring 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 4 Lessas to plaintiff by demarcating the same. iii). That the parties have agreed that they will put their signature in the map which is prepared after physical measurement of land measuring 7 Bighes 2 Kathas 4 Lessas and the same is described and shown as Plot Nos.1 and 3. iv). That the plaintiffs have agreed that they shall not claim any interest over 2 Bighas of land and they confirmed that the said 2 Bighas of land has been in possession of defendant No.7, which is described and shown as Plot No.2 in the survey map. v) That the plaintiffs shall provide 15 feet wide road in the North East corner of land measuring 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 4 Lessas for ingress and outgress to the plot No.2 as mentioned in the survey map. vi) That except the aforesaid terms and conditions, neither of the parties shall have any grievances against each other. vii) That on failure of the either parties to abide by the terms and conditions as aforesaid, the decree to be drawn up on the basis of this compromise petition shall be executable by filing Execution Proceeding.” 11. On the very date, on which, the said joint compromise petition was filed i.e. on 07.07.2022, the learned Trial Court upon taking into account that the power of attorney holders of both the parties were Page No.# 10/17 duly represented including the defendant No.1, disposed of the suit on compromise by incorporating the terms and conditions so agreed upon in the joint compromise petition. Further to that, the compromise petition containing the terms and conditions of the compromise was marked with the letter ‘X’ and made a part of the decree. 12. Around 9(nine) months thereafter, the defendant Nos.2 to 6, who are the petitioners herein filed an application for recalling the compromise decree which was registered and numbered as Misc.(J) Case No.49/2023. It was the allegation made in the said application that on 03.03.2023, few police personnels along with others came and entered the suit land and started measuring the suit land. It was further stated that the petitioners resisted them from measuring the land. The petitioners thereupon enquired and came to learn that the suit was decreed on compromise on 07.07.2022 and that the defendants in the suit had waived their rights over their claim over the Schedule A, B, C and D lands on the basis of an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- which was yet to be paid to the petitioners. 13. It was further mentioned that the defendant No.1 never had taken the consent of the petitioners to waive their rights and interests over the suit land and, as such, the compromise decree dated 07.07.2022 on the basis of which the Title Suit No.36/2019 was Page No.# 11/17 disposed of was fraudulently done behind the back of the petitioners. 14. It is seen from the records that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein who were the plaintiffs did not file any written objection to the application filed for recalling the compromise decree. The allegations of fraud which were made in the application filed by the petitioners remained unrebutted. 15. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that on the ground that the application so filed by the petitioners remained unrebutted, the petitioners also did not feel it necessary for adducing evidence in the said proceedings. Be that as it may, at the time when the matter was taken up for hearing, the respondents herein, who were the plaintiffs objected to the said petition by submitting written argument as well as making oral submissions. This led to the passing of the impugned order dated 05.02.2024, by which, the Misc.(J) Case No.49/2023 was dismissed, holding, inter alia, that the compromise decree so entered into by and between the petitioners herein as well as the respondent Nos.1 to 5 was lawful. 16. In the backdrop of the above, the present proceedings has been initiated. 17. Mr. PS Deka, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Page No.# 12/17 the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were never informed by their power of attorney holder about any negotiations with the plaintiffs and further, as regards any settlement. It came out of the blue for the petitioners when on 03.03.2022, some people came to measure the suit land and then on enquiries, it could be learnt that the defendant No.1, who is the power of attorney holder of the petitioners, behind the back of the petitioners had entered into some sort of negotiation and compromise with the plaintiffs. 18. The learned senior counsel further submitted that this aspect of the matter that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 having known of the fraud so committed, have also in their wisdom not filed any written objection and it is only at the stage of arguments they objected. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the said application on the ground of the doctrine of Non- Traverse and Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on the principle that facts admitted need not be proved. 19. Per contra, Mr. B Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the scheme of the Code would show that unless the compromise decree is not fraudulent and unlawful, the question of interference with a compromise decree is not permissible by the Court. He referred to the provision of Section 96 of the Code as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Banwari Page No.# 13/17 Lal Vs. Chando Devi (Through LR) And Ors reported in (1993) 1 SCC 581, wherein the Supreme Court had been categorical that the question of interference with the compromise decree is not permissible sans an application under Section 151 of the Code. He, therefore, submitted that pleadings cannot be construed as proof being the well-settled principles of law, the petitioners, only on the basis of averments made in the application, cannot succeed without evidence being led, proving that the compromise decree is a fraudulent act on the part of the defendant No.1 in collusion with the plaintiffs. He therefore, submitted that as the averments made in the petition so filed being registered as Misc.(J) Case No.49/2023 on the face of it was not sufficient, it was advised to the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein that there was no necessity of filing any written objection. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court was justified in passing the order dated 05.02.2024 as there was no evidence adduced proving that there was any fraud committed by the defendant No. 1 in collusion with the plaintiffs. 20. This Court having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties has given an anxious consideration of the submissions made and also the materials on record. 21. From the facts so narrated hereinabove, it would be seen that the defendant No.1 was duly authorized to act on behalf of the Page No.# 14/17 defendant Nos. 2 to 7 in the Title Suit being Title Suit No.36/2019 and further to take steps on their behalf. This aspect of the matter would be apparent from the perusal of the powers so given on the basis of the power of attorney dated 17.07.2019 and on the basis of which, both the written statement and the counter claim was filed was signed, verified and filed by the defendant No.1. 22. It is further seen from the very order dated 07.07.2022 passed in the compromise petition being Petition No. 3402/2022 that the plaintiffs were represented by their power of attorney agent and on behalf of the defendants the defendant No.1 himself and as power of attorney holder of the defendant Nos.2 to 7 had represented before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court after arriving at the conclusion that the compromise so entered into was lawful had passed the compromise decree on 07.07.2022. 23. It is further apparent that from the contents of the application so filed by the petitioners herein that behind the back of the petitioners, the defendant No.1 had entered into some secret negotiation with the plaintiffs and on the basis thereof had entered into the compromise thereby waiving their rights in respect to the suit land. These allegations are specific allegations pertaining to fraud committed by the defendant No.1 in collusion with the plaintiffs and that too, behind the back of the defendant Nos.2 to 7, who are the petitioners before Page No.# 15/17 this Court. These allegations were required to be traversed, but, however, it appears that on account of the legal advice received by the respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs, there was no rebuttal by filing any written objection to such allegations. The non-rebuttal of these allegations also led to the petitioners’ presuming that there was no requirement of submitting any evidence as the plaintiffs did not deny to the allegations. This resulted in the petitioners herein, who were the defendant Nos.2 to 7 in the suit not to file any evidence. The resultant effect is the order impugned in the proceedings, whereby the learned Trial Court without considering that there was no rebuttal to the allegations passed the order dated 05.02.2024. 24. This Court at this stage finds it very pertinent to take note of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs to the effect that it was on account of the legal advice there was no rebuttal to the averments made in the petition which was registered as Misc. (J).Case No.49/2023. He, therefore, submitted that on that basis, the entire compromise decree may not be set aside as the same was otherwise lawful as would be apparent from the very findings of the learned Trial Court. 25. Taking into account the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant proceedings with the following observation(s) and direction(s): Page No.# 16/17 (i) The learned Trial Court had exercised the jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the application being Misc.(J).Case No.49/2023 without there being any rebuttal to the allegations contained in the said application. Accordingly, the order dated 05.02.2024 passed in Misc.(J)Case No.49/2023 is set aside and quashed. (ii). This Court, taking into account that on incorrect legal advice the plaintiffs did not submit any written objection, gives an opportunity to the plaintiffs to file written objection to the application being Misc.(J).Case No.49/2023. (iii). This Court further also takes note of that on an assumption that as there was no written objection, the petitioners herein, who are the defendant Nos.2 to 7 were not required to adduce evidence, permits upon filing of written objection by the plaintiffs/respondents herein contesting to the averments made in Misc.(J).Case No.49/2023, to adduce evidence. This is so necessary taking into account that pleadings cannot be said to be proof and, more so, when the pleadings pertains to fraud. (iv). In view of the above, this Court restores Misc.(J).Case No.49/2023 to the file of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tinsukia. (v). Taking into account that all the parties are duly represented before this Court, they are directed to appear before the Court of Page No.# 17/17 the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tinsukia on 21.07.2025, on which date, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, who are the plaintiffs would file their written objections, if so advised. It is observed that if written objections are not filed on the date as stated above, the learned Trial Court shall file the said application being Misc.(J).Case No.49/2023 in the spirit of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code. (vi). Taking into account that the suit had ended in a compromise decree and the question arises on the lawfulness of the said decree, this Court would request the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tinsukia to dispose of the said application at the earliest and preferably within four months from the date of appearance of the parties. 26. With the above, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant