M.Y.Eqbal, J. - (1.) This revision application at the instance of the judgment-debtor is directed against the order dated 15th December, 1995, passed by Munsif 2, Bhagalpur, in Misc. Case No. 11 of 1992, Where by the objection purported to have been filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.
(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The plaintiff decree-holders, who were opposite party, filed Title Suit No. 145 of 1964 in the Court of Munsif, Bhagalpur II for eviction of the defendant-petitioner and others on the ground of default and personal necessity. The suit was eventually decreed in terms of compromise by the learned Munsif by an order dated 19.2.1968. A copy of the joint petition of compromise is annexed with the civil revision application and marked as Annexure 1. The petitioners alleged that, in terms of the compromise, the petitioners did not give vacant possession of the house in question, as a result of which the decree holder opposite party executed the decree by filing an execution proceeding, the petitioners filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the decree on various grounds. According to the petitioners, while passing the decree on the basis of compromise, no finding was recorded by the learned Munsif with regard to the existence of any of the grounds available to the plaintiffs for sustaining the decree for eviction. The petitioners further claimed that, in absence of any of the grounds for eviction the decree is a nullity. The said objection filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was opposed by the decree-holders opposite party by filing rejoinder. The learned Court below, by the impugned order rejected the objection filed by the petitioners. Hence, this revision application.
(3.) Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order is illegal and against the principle laid down by this Court in various decisions. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied on a decision in the case of Sureshwar Prasad Singh and another v. Kedarnath Verma and Others (A.I.R. 1972 Patna 222);