SATTAR BAIG AKHTAR BAIG MIRZA THROUGH SPECIAL POA MOHD SHAHRUKH MOHD KHALILversusSAMBHAJI RAJARAM KALE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40012

                                                     (1)                    924-WP-15357-2023


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 924 WRIT PETITION NO. 15357 OF 2023

                      Sattar Baig Akhtar Baig Mirza Through Special Poa Mohd
                                       Shahrukh Mohd Khalil
                                               VERSUS
                                  Sambhaji Rajaram Kale And Others
                                                 …..
           Mr. A. A. Yadkikar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
           Mrs. G. N. Chincholkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
           Mr. A. D. Hande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 8 to 11.
                                                 …..

                                                  CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.


                                                  DATE       : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026.

           PC :-

           1.        It is a fact that the petitioner was not a party to the suit that was filed

           between the present respondents for specific performance. The petitioner

           contends that he had developed an interest in the suit property and, hence,

           with an apprehension that the result of the suit may adversely affect his

           interest, an application was moved under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil

           Procedure before the trial Court. The trial Court acknowledges the application

           and called for a reply from the other side.

           2.        However, before the application could be decided, the disputing parties

           to the suit entered into a compromise, and the suit came to be disposed of on


           Kiran Kawre
                                         (2)                    924-WP-15357-2023


the basis of a compromise decree. The petitioner has naw grievance about the

compromise decree. As per his contention, there is an embargo in the Code of

Civil Procedure that an outsider person cannot challenge the decree and

hence, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the decree itself in this

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3.        Mr. Yadkikar, learned advocate for the petitioner, relied on Section 96 as

also Rule III-A of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code. He would submits

that, in the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner is remediless. The

petitioner would be ready to file an appeal however, according to him the law

forbids such rights. As such, he placed reliance on the judgment and order

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh Vs.

Anirudh Singh & Ors1.

4.        Mr. Yadkikar submits that the decree could be questioned only in the

present writ petition. To that, Mrs. Chincholkar, appearing for respondent

No.1, relies upon the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) Vs. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin

Jamat Samaj & Ors2. She submits that paragraph No.15 of the said judgment

is a complete and direct answer to the question formulated by the petitioner

for himself. She would then submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

1 (2020) 6 SCC 629

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 930

Kiran Kawre
                                       (3)                  924-WP-15357-2023


observed that a person who is not a party to the suit but whose rights are

affected by the consent decree has to approach the appellate Court under

Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, however, by obtaining leave. Mrs.

Chincholkar thus submits that the law does not forbid such a third person

from challenging even a compromise decree, provided that leave is obtained

from the appellate Court. She submits that in view of this, the petitioner has a

remedy to file an appeal by seeking appropriate leave before the concerned

appellant forum.

5.        Now the last argument of Mr. Yadkikar, learned advocate for the

petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be treated as a party who is absolutely

a foreigner to the suit. His bone of contention is that, since the application

under Order I Rule 10 is already preferred, the petitioner might be precluded

from taking recourse to Section 96.

6.        I do not agree with such contention. Merely filing of an application

under Order I Rule 10 for getting impleaded as a party defendant to the suit

by itself does not constitute such person as a party to the suit within the

meaning of the Code.

7.        In view of this, I subscribe to the argument advanced by Mrs.

Chincholkar that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Sakina Sultanali Sunesara case (supra), the petitioner has an appropriate


Kiran Kawre
                                          (4)                    924-WP-15357-2023


remedy to file an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code

provided that, leave is obtained form the appellate forum. In view of this, I do

not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition stands

dismissed.

8.        Mr. Yadkikar submits that the petitioner is protected under the order of

this Court order dated 21 December 2023. Considering the tenure of the

interim relief which is in operation till today, I deem it appropriate to continue

the interim relief for a further period of eight weeks from today.

9.        In view of this, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

10.       It is clarified that all contentions of the parties are kept open, including

the petitioner’s contention about conclusion of the suit without passing an

appropriate order on his application.



                                                 [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]




Kiran Kawre