1 2025:CGHC:32568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 647 of 2025 1. Meera D/o Late Nami Aged About 35 Years Caste Kunbi Occupation Housewife R/o Village Sarfoka Post Sarfoka, Tahsil Baikunthpur District - Korea (C.G.) (Plaintiffs) 2. Nirmal D/o Late Nami Aged About 37 Years Caste Kunbi Occupation Housewife R/o Village Bider Post Dudhi Tahsil Dudhi District - Sonbhadra (U.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Fulpati D/o Late Nami Aged About 30 Years Caste Kunbi Occupation Housewife R/o Village Shivri Post Bartikala Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Plaintiffs) 2. Laxmaniya Wd/o Nami Aged About 60 Years Caste Kunbi R/o Village Injani Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3. Jitendra S/o Late Gyaneshwar Aged About 45 Years Caste Kunbi R/o Village Injani Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Defendants) 4. Uday S/o Gyaneshwar Caste Kunbi R/o Village Injani Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14. 07.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 11-A/2016 by the learned Additional Judge to the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.16 17:40:41 +0530 2 Court of Civil Judge Senior Judge, Ramanujganj-Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), whereby, an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC moved by the petitioners and respondents No. 3 & 4 has been rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners and respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property mentioned in Schedule “B” of the plaint and for declaring the will-deed dated 25.09.2001 and proposal of Gram Panchayat Injani dated 17.07.2003 as null and void. The defendants/respondents No. 3 & 4 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners and respondents No. 3 & 4 settled the dispute outside the Court and filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC but the same has been rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 on the ground that respondents No. 1 & 2 have not entered into a compromise with respondents No. 3 & 4 and the petitioners. Against the said order, the instant petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners and respondents No. 3 & 4 settled the dispute outside the Court and jointly moved an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC to pass a compromise judgment and decree. He would further submit that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered and allowed the said application. He would contend that the learned Trial Court committed an error of law while rejecting the application moved under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. He would pray to allow the instant petition. 4. I have heard Mr. Prajapati, and perused the documents placed on the record. 3 5. The learned Trial Court has recorded a specific finding that the application for settlement/compromise has not been moved by all parties to the suit, and therefore, the compromise decree can not be passed. As the application was not moved by respondents No. 1 and 2 and their consent was not obtained, in my opinion, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application moved under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. Thus I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant