18.03.2026 Item No.23 (DL) Court No.06 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION C.O. 894 of 2026 < Dalim Sk. & Ors. -Vs- Apel Sk. & Anr. Mr. Himadri Kumar Mahata, Mr. Anirban Das. ….for the petitioner. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated December 10, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court Jangipur at Murshidabad whereby solenama petition (i.e. an application for recording compromise) filed by the petitioners has not been entertained and the petitioners have been directed to file a certified copy of the judgment in respect of Misc. LR 05 of 2023 for proper adjudication of the suit. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in taking into consideration the objection as to the maintainability of the solenama filed by a person whose application for addition of party had been rejected by the order dated November 11, 2025. 3. By the order impugned, the learned Trial Court has only observed that the sonemana petition filed by the petitioners cannot be entertained “at this stage” and the petitioners have been directed to file 2 a certified copy of the judgment in respect of Misc. LR 05 of 2023 for proper adjudication of the suit. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners is correct in his assertion that a person whose application for addition of party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has no right to file any petition challenging the maintainability of the application for compromise filed by the petitioner, but in the case at hand, the learned Trial Court has not entertained any objection filed by the said person whose application for addition of party had been dismissed. The learned Trial Court has only referred to its previous orders and found therefrom a reference to judgment delivered in Misc. LR 05 of 2023 a copy whereof had been filed by the said person along with his petition as to maintainability of the proceeding. There is nothing wrong in such act of the learned Trial Court. 5. If there is something already on record that has a bearing on the case at hand the Trial Court is not precluded from looking into it. It cannot be lost sight of that the Trial Court was (is) under duty bound to get satisfied as regards the lawfulness of the compromise in terms of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. In such view of the matter, the ultimate conclusion reached by the Court in observing that the “solenama petition” (the application for recording compromise) cannot be entertained without first 3 going through the certified copy of the judgment in respect of Misc. LR 05 of 2023 (copy whereof was already on record of the Court) perusing which the Court found that the property mentioned in the deed which formed the subject matter of the pre-emption proceeding before it, had vested with another person. To wit, the Court was desirous of getting a clear picture about the title of the land conveyance whereof was being sought to be pre-empted. 7. Upon a meaningful reading of the order impugned, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court has rejected the “solenama petition” outrightly. It has only postponed the consideration of the “solenama petition” to a later date upon first looking into the certified copy of the judgment in respect of the Misc. LR 05 of 2023. 8. In such view of the matter, the ultimate conclusion reached by the Court to take into consideration the “solenama” (i.e. compromise) only after going through the certified copy of the judgment passed in Misc. LR 05 of 12023 cannot be said to be erroneous. 9. It is clarified that that the petitioners shall be entitled to put up the “solenama petition” for further consideration of the learned Trial Court along with a certified copy of the judgment in respect of Misc. LR 05 of 2023 if the petitioners so desire. It will be open to the learned Trial Court to take an informed decision as regards the fate of the “solenama 4 petition” after having perused the said certified copy of the judgment in Misc. LR 05 of 2023. It is further clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the “solenama petition” (i.e. application for disposing the case upon recording compromise) and it will remain fully open to the learned Trial Court to deal with and dispose of such application on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law including the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if such application is made or put up before the learned Trial Court. 10. Since the ultimate conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted, C.O. 894 of 2026 is not entertained. The same stands disposed of with the above observations. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)