Basanti Devi. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.

[markandey katju ; gyan sudha misra, jj.] - code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) 1908 - section 151 - saving of inherent powers of court -- this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned single judge of the patna high court in civil revision no. 945 of 2002. while the aforesaid partition suit was pending, the defendants smt. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas executed a general power of attorney on 31.7.1992 in favour of umesh chandra and dr. sanjeev kumar mishra and the same was registered. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas cannot be allowed to say that their own act of signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent. the high court has observed that defendants nos. 2 and 2a viz., pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas should have consulted the power of attorney dr. sanjeev kumar mishra before signing the compromise petition. the principal is not bound to consult his attorney before signing a compromise petition. the impugned judgment and order of the high court is set aside and the order dated 7.6.2002 of the learned subordinate judge-v, bhagalpur is restored......on 08.11.2002, the petitioner arrived and tried to make construction by taking possession, on objection, it reveals that he also got a sale deed with respect to one decimal land left over as early as in the year 1992. so, averting that in face of earlier transfer subsequent sale deed is nothing but a fraudulent act. after investigation and inquiry cognizance was taken which is under challenge.5. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that between the parties earlier there was proceeding under sections 144 and 145. it has already been held that they are in possession of their respective lands and in fact there is no clash of interest. it is pointed out that the complainant had already filed title suit no. 3/2004 before the munsif, jehanabad, and declaration as regard to fraudulent nature of the sale in favour of the petitioner but, in spite of preceding the suit ex parte. it has been dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2007.6. from the order also it appears that there was a direction by competent court to get the land in question measured scientifically to ascertain actual state of affairs at the spot, but nothing of the kind was done. the dispute between the parties is of purely civil nature. learned additional public prosecutor after initial hesitation concedes the submissions that averments made in the complaint also speaks that the case is of purely civil nature as the disputes centres on with the two transactions and the land, if any, left over by the complainant.7. considering the facts and circumstances and dismissal of suit, the impugned order is hereby quashed and application stands allowed.