2025:JHHC:18009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 30 of 2009 --------- 1. Sidhnath Singh 2. Sitaram Singh @ Sita Ram Rai Both sons of late Shiv Lochan Sigh. No.1 Rsident of Poddar Para, Dhobi Kulhi, P.O. and P.s. Jharia, District-Dhanbad. No.2 resident of Civil Lines, Buxar, P.O., P.S. and District-Buxar (Bihar) … … Plaintiffs/Petitioners Versus 1. Mostt. Lanji Devi, wife of Ram Pravesh Singh 2. Tej Narayan Singh 3. Upendra Singh. 4. Ranjit Singh 5. Kinod Singh Sons of late Ram Pravesh Singh 6. Ramji Singh, son of Late Ram Chandra Singh all residents of Poddar Para, Dhobi Kulhi, P.O. and P.S. Jharia, District-Dhanbad …. Defendants/Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate ----------- 16/Dated: 3rd July, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 12.05.2003 passed in Misc. Case No.03 o 1998 arising out of Title Suit No.104 of 1993 whereby and whereunder an application filed by the opposite party No.6 under Order IX Rule XIII r/w section 151 of C.P.C. has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Original Title Suit No.104 of 1993, the petitioner is the plaintiff and in course of pendency of the said suit, a joint compromise petition was filed by the parties in accordance of which the suit was decreed. The defendant No.2/O.P. No.6 has challenged the compromise decree and prayed for setting aside the same on the ground that the alleged compromise was never entered into by him and the said document is forged and fabricated by obtaining his forged signature on the document and on Vakalatnama. It is further submitted that 2025:JHHC:18009 2 learned trial court without considering the materials has set aside the decree passed on the basis of compromise with observation that the compromise does not bear the signature of the defendant No.2/O.P. No.6, Ramji Singh. It is further submitted that learned court below has failed to consider that compromise petition filed in the Title Suit No.104 of 1993 was signed by both the parties including O.P. No.6 (defendant No.2) and the same is accordance with provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civl Procedure as learned court below has wrongly set aside the compromise decree passed in said title suit. Hence, it is quite illegal and fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that in the Misc. Case No.03 of 1998, three witnesses were examined including the advocate, witness No.1 Jitendra Kumar Rai who signed Vakalatnama on behalf of defendant No.2/O.P. No.6 Ramji Singh and had identified identification of his signature at the alleged compromise petition filed before the concerned trial court. The defendant No.2/O.P. No.6 himself was examined as P.W.2 and the expert was also appointed for examination of handwriting of Ramji Singh, defendant No.2. Further, witness No.1, Advocate Jitendra Kumar has categorically admitted that Ramji Singh, who is present in the dock has not signed on compromise petition as well as on Vakalatnama. He has further admitted that Sidhnath Singh (petitioner No.1), Sitaram Singh (petitioner No.2) and Ram Pravesh Singh had come with another person along compromise petition and that another person who came with them had signed on compromise petition and on Vakalatnama. Similarly expert witness No.3 has also examined the specimen signature of the defendant No.2/O.P. No.6, Ramji Singh and opined that it is not tallying with the signature of Ramji Singh. Therefore, on the basis of concrete evidence available on record, the compromise petition was found not to be signed by O.P. No.6, Ramji Singh. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order calling for any interference. 2025:JHHC:18009 3 5. I have gone through the impugned order, it appears that learned concerned court has considered all the aspects of the case in the light of evidence collected during enquiry into the matter of genuineness of the compromise and there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference in this impugned order. Hence, this revision is dismissed. 6. Interim order, if any passed earlier in this case, stands vacated. 7. Let a copy of this order along with Lower Court Record be sent back to the concerned court for needful and information. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/-