- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-original defendant No.7 challenging the order dated 17.9.09 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') by which the trial court has permitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (original plaintiffs) to withdraw the suit against the defendants, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the concerned parties and dismissing the suit against the present appellant-original defendant No.7.
(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent No. 1 to 6 (original plaintiffs) had filed the suit before the trial court in respect of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 119/1/1/3 and New No. 134 at village Jamdoli, Tehsil Kanota, District Jaipur, which was allotted to late Shri Rawat Singh. THE said Rawat Singh happened to be the father of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. THE said Rawat Singh had subsequently executed one power of attorney in favour of respondent No.7, (original defendant No.2) Shri K.K. Bhati on 30.6.1993, on the basis of which Shri Bhati had executed one sale-deed in favour of respondent No.6 Keshav Vidyapeeth on 25th April, 1995. THE heirs of the said Rawat Singh i.e. respondent No. 1 to 5 had filed the suit for the cancellation of the said sale-deed dated 25th April, 1995 and for declaration and injunction as prayed for in the suit. From the record it appears that the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit had entered into a compromise and requested the trial court to pass the decree in terms of compromise. The trial court on 21st February, 2008 verified the signatures of the respective parties and their respective advocates and passed the order that the suit shall be disposed of on 4.3.08. Thereafter the present appellant submitted an application for being impleaded as party-defendant in the suit stating interalia that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. the heirs of Shri Rawat Singh had executed an agreement in his favour on 5.2.02 to sell the suit land to him. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs in the suit. However, the trial court vide order dated 3.9.09 allowed the said application and permitted the appellant to be impleaded as the party-defendant No.7 in the suit. Thereafter the trial court vide impugned order dated 17.9.09 permitted the plaintiffs in the suit to withdraw the suit on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties and dismissed the suit against defendant No.7. The trial court in the impugned order also observed that the compromise entered into between the plaintiffs and the original-defendants shall become a part of the decree. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-defendant No.7 has preferred the present appeal. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Ms. Neetu Dave for the appellant that the trial court should not have permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit without the consent of the appellant-defendant No.7 as he was permitted to be impleaded as party-defendant No.7 in the suit. She also submitted that the interest of the appellant was jeopardised by the respondents by entering into inter-se compromise in the suit. The court does not find any substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that the compromise had already taken place between the plaintiffs and the concerned defendants as per the order dated 21st February, 08 and the trial court had taken the same on record. The present appellant came to be impleaded as the party-defendant subsequently on his application filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. However, merely because the appellant was joined as party-defendant in the suit, it could not be said that the earlier compromise already entered into between the parties and which was part of the record, could not be acted upon. It is needless to say that as per the provisions contained in Order XXIII Rule I CPC, the plaintiffs could abandon whole or a part of claim for and against one or any of the defendants in the suit. In the instant case, the concerned respondents-plaintiffs had not sought any relief against the appellant, who was subsequently joined as the party-defendant No. 7 in the suit after the parties had entered into the compromise. As rightly observed by the trial court, it was open for the appellant-defendant No.7 to file appropriate proceedings to assert his rights under the agreement allegedly executed by the concerned respondents-plaintiffs in his favour, and that he could not compel to continue with the suit, even though the plaintiffs and the concerned defendants had already settled their disputes as per the compromise arrived at between them. There being no force in the present appeal, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ;