2025:HHC:23002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 102 of 2024 Reserved on 17.6.2025 Date of decision 16.7.2025. Himat Ram & others ...Petitioners. Versus Devta Sh. Shyati Nag & others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners  : Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents  : Mr. H.K.S. Thakur, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: By way of instant petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ‘Code’), the petitioners have assailed order dated 11.7.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi in Execution Petition No. 30 of 2018. 2. Civil   Suit   No.   64   of   2012   was   filed   by respondents   No.   1   to   5   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the plaintiffs/decree   holders)   in   the   Court   of   learned   Civil Judge,   Chachiot   at   Gohar,   District   Mandi   against   the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ­2­ petitioners and proforma respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as the defendants/judgment debtors). 3. A compromise decree was passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 64 of 2012on 8.11.2012 on the basis of a compromise deed Ext. PA. 4. The plaintiffs/decree holders filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code alleging violation of compromise   decree   dated   8.11.2012   by   the   defendants­ judgment   debtors. It   was   alleged   that   the defendants/judgment debtors, as per decree, were liable to allow Devta Shri Shyati Nag to remain in village Lot   for one year but they had refused to fulfill such obligation. 5. The defendants/judgment debtors contested the application by alleging that prior to 2015, the deity (Shyati Nag) was kept in private houses of the residents of village Lot and village Bung.  A meeting of all stake holders was held and it was decided to construct a permanent temple for the deity at village Bung.   In sequel to such decision, the   temple   was   constructed   and   the   deity   is   having permanent abode in the said temple, which was open to all without   any   reservation.     It   was   also   alleged   that   the ­3­ residents   of   village   Lot   had   themselves   withdrawn   from services of the deity.   They had neither participated nor contributed in the construction of the temple. 6. The   learned   Executing   Court   framed   the following issues:­ “1. Whether   the   judgment   debtors   have   willfully disobeyed   the   judgment/decree   dated   8.11.2012 (wrongly  written  as  8.11.2021)  of  this   Court,  as alleged? OPO 2. Whether   the   application   is   not   maintainable,   as alleged? OPR. 3. Relief.” 7. Issues No.1 was partially decided in affirmative, whereas   issue   No.2   was   answered   in   negative.     The application of the plaintiffs/decree holders has been partly allowed and the respondents­judgment debtors have been directed to abide by the terms of the comprise Ext. PA and to allow the plaintiffs/decree holders to take the deity to village Lot for one year as per the compromise deed. It has further been ordered that the handing over the deity to plaintiffs/decree   holders   by   the   defendants/judgment debtors is to be done under the supervision of SDM Bali­ Chowki   and   concerned   SHO   has   also   been   directed   to ­4­ personally visit the spot with SDM to provide necessary assistance to him. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. Record reveals that plaintiff No.1 in Civil Suit No. 64 of 2012 was Devta Shyati Nag (Shesh Nag) and the suit on behalf of deity was filed through the Kardar Duni Chand. The   said   Duni   Chand   was   plaintiff   No.2   in  his personal   capacity. Three   other   plaintiffs,   namely   Mine Ram, Vijay Kumar and Dalip Singh also residents of village Lot, Bali­Chowki, District Mandi, H.P had also joined. 10. Admittedly,   the   suit   was   not   filed   in representative capacity. The compromise deed Ext. PA has been signed by Duni Chand for Devta Shyati Nag besides other plaintiffs. 11. The terms of compromise were as under:­ i) That the work in respect of Devta Shyati Nag would continue in the same manner, as has been executed from ages and none of the parties can either change or correct the same on its own. ­5­ ii) That both the parties have mutually agreed that the manner in which Devta Shyati Nag used to be kept in villages Bung and Lot turn by turn every year, in future also, the same precedent will continue and none of the parties will create any hindrance. iii) It has also been mutually agreed between the parties that whatever jobs have been assigned to whichever family traditionally relating   to   the   deity   will  continue   in  the same manner and there will be no change. iv) That civil suit relating to deity pending in the Court at Gohar against the defendants­ second   party   may   be   dismissed   or   its proceedings are closed and both the parties will have no objection regarding the same. v) That   hereinafter   none   of   the   parties   will institute any case relating to deity in any Court   in   the   State   of   Himachal   Pradesh because   we   have   entered   into   a compromise on the basis of old tradition. ­6­ 12. It is evident that the deity being minor cannot enter into a compromise by itself. Order 32 Rule 7 of the Code provides that no next friend or guardian in the suit shall without the leave of the Court, expressly recorded in the   proceedings,   enter   into   any   agreement   of   the compromise on behalf of a minor. It further provides that an   application   for   leave   shall   be   accompanied   by   an affidavit of the next friend or the guardian in the suit and if the minor is represented by a pleader by the certificate of the pleader to the effect that the agreement or compromise process is in his opinion in the benefits of the minor. The proviso appended to Order 32 Rule 7 further provides that the opinion so expressed by the guardian or the pleader shall not preclude the Court from examining whether the agreement or compromise was for the benefit of the minor. 13. Order 23 rule 1 of the Code reads as under:­ “Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim — (1) At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim: Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII extend, ­7­ neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court. (2) An application for leave under the proviso to sub-rule shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person. 14. Section 23 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as under:­ “23.   What   considerations   and   objects   are   lawful,   and what not.—The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless— it is forbidden by law ; or is of such a nature that if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or the   Court   regards   it   as   immoral,   or   opposed   to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement  of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.” 15. Section   29   of   Indian   Contract   Act   reads   as under:­ “29. Agreements void for uncertainty.—Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.” ­8­ 16. Order   23   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure authorizes the Court to pass a decree on the basis of a compromise where it is proved to its satisfaction that a suit has been settled wholly or in part by lawful agreement or compromise. In the case in hand, the learned trial Court had not recorded any satisfaction in this behalf. Further, neither the requisite leave to compromise the suit on behalf of deity was sought nor granted. Evidently, no leave of the Court had been sought as per Order 32 Rule 7 of the Code also. The terms of the compromise were uncertain and vague. It was nowhere certified that the compromise was in the interest of the deity. The object of the compromise was also prima facie opposed the public policy. 17. The subject matter of the dispute between the parties reveals that the residents of two different villages were asserting their rights over the deity. 18. It   is   evident   that   the   parties   to   the   suit   or compromise was not representative of the entire population of the area or all the persons having their allegiance to the deity and in absence of their representation in accordance with law, the matter could not have been compromised. ­9­ Moreover, the terms of the compromise are totally vague, which   cannot   be   understood   by   third   person   in unequivocal terms. 19. The   deity   being   perpetual   minor   cannot  come forward to avoid or challenge the compromise. 20. In above circumstances, the executability of the decree itself is in question and the learned Executing Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction by looking into this aspect of the matter. Though,  the instant petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code, yet this Court is not precluded from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India suo moto. 21. The   compromise   decree   due   to   its   uncertain terms in all probabilities will remain a cause of dispute for the   residents   of   the   concerned   villages   for   all   times   to come. It   will   give   occasion   to   different   segments   and spheres to use the decree at will for achieving the vested interests. The apprehension is not without basis; as before filing of instant proceedings before the learned Executing Court, another application under Order 21 Rule 32 was filed by certain persons, who were not even parties to the ­10­ compromise decree. The application was dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 9.8.2016, which order   was   challenged   before   this   Court,   however,   the petition filed before this Court being Civil Revision No. 250 of   2018   was   withdrawn   by   the   petitioners   therein   with liberty   to   file   appropriate   application   before   the   learned Executing Court. Thus, the compromise decree in question can be used as a tool by the parties to this  lis  or by the third parties to misuse the process of law. 22. The mode and manner in which the compromise Ext PA was  presented before the  court and  decree was procured thereon, itself provides with reasons to suspect the  bonafide  of   the   parties   thereto.   It   again   is   being emphasized at the cost of repetition that the cause raised in the original suit does not appear to have been raised or defended in representative capacity. 23. The litigation or a decree of court cannot be used as a tool or means to propagate conflict in perpetuity; for such an approach will be adversative to the concept of justice according to law. ­11­ 24. In result, the impugned order dated 11.7.2024, passed   by   the   learned   Civil   Judge,   Chachiot   at   Gohar, District Mandi in Execution Petition No. 30 of 2018 is set aside.  The compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No. 64 of 2012 is held inexecutable in the manner it has been sought to be done.  However, this order will not preclude the parties or any other person to get determined their rights, if any, with respect to the affairs of the Devta Shri Shyati Nag independently in accordance with law. 25. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 16th July, 2025 Judge (kck)