Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11,VII,11(d),XXIII

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 11, O. VII, R. 11(d) & O. XXIII---Former suit (a civil revision) withdrawn before the High Court on the basis of compromise---Subsequent filing of plaint--Whether liable to be rejected or not---Suit being of representative character--Effect---Res judicata---Scope---Revision was filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate (District) Court that reversed an order of rejection of a plaint rendered by the Trial Court---Appellate/District Court held that a compromise was entered between the parties and its mere non-mentioning by the High Court in its order was of no legal effect---Contention of the petitioners being that they were not parties to the compromise---Validity---Record revealed that previously the respondents (three in number) were plaintiffs in the former suit who in their application before this(High) Court sought withdrawal on the basis of compromise, however, this Court, in its order didn't mention the factum of compromise and allowed simple withdrawal of the suit---Admittedly, the former suit was also of representative nature having been filed by the respondents being representatives of their tribe as it pertained to a dispute over the royalty of the forest amongst their tribe with the tribes to which the petitioners/defendants belonged---Pertinently, the tribes were represented by special attorneys and as many as 08 persons as defendants signed the compromise who were impleaded in the present suit---Moreover, as many as 12 persons signed or thumb impressed the compromise deed as jirga members; two amongst them were shown as belonging to two tribes---Thus, firstly, the former suit was representative, as such, not all members of the tribes were supposed to be present before the Court; secondly, the dispute was over the tribe's entitlement of royalty of the forest, pertaining to a common interest of the village's propriety body; thirdly, there was compromise which also reflected that a jirga was convened for its purpose---Hence, the petitioners' contention (that they were not parties to the compromise ) was not tenable as far the existence of the cause…