Special case procedure under CPC binds only parties to the agreement, and findings cannot prejudice non-parties without notice.

A special case under Section 90 and Order XXXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure binds only the parties to the written agreement and cannot prejudice persons who were neither parties nor served with notice. The procedure requires registration between the interested parties, notice to all other parties to the agreement, and the court's satisfaction that the agreement is duly executed, bona fide, and fit for decision. Where a subordinate court ignores this framework, treats the matter as an ordinary suit, and records findings affecting third parties without the required notice or joinder, the High Court may intervene under Articles 226 and 227 to prevent jurisdictional error and injustice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a judgment and decree passed in a special case under Section 90 and Order XXXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could bind persons who were neither parties to the agreement nor given notice of the proceeding; (ii) whether the High Court could interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India where the subordinate court acted in disregard of the procedure governing a special case and recorded findings affecting third parties.

Issue (i): Whether a judgment and decree passed in a special case under Section 90 and Order XXXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could bind persons who were neither parties to the agreement nor given notice of the proceeding.

Analysis: A special case under Section 90 rests on a written agreement between all persons interested in the question stated for the Court's opinion. Order XXXVI requires the case to be registered between the parties claiming to be interested as plaintiff and the other parties as defendants, with notice to all parties to the agreement other than the party presenting the application. The Court also has to satisfy itself that the agreement was duly executed, that the parties have a bona fide interest in the question, and that the matter is fit to be decided. A decree in such proceedings is meant to operate only inter se the parties to the agreement and cannot be used to prejudice strangers to it.

Conclusion: The decree and findings could not bind persons who were not parties to the agreement and were not served with notice.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India where the subordinate court acted in disregard of the procedure governing a special case and recorded findings affecting third parties.

Analysis: Certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction are available where a subordinate court acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in flagrant disregard of law or procedure, causing failure of justice or grave injustice. The impugned proceedings were treated as an ordinary adversarial suit although they were in substance a special case, and the Court proceeded despite non-joinder of necessary parties and absence of notice to all parties to the agreement. Findings were recorded against persons who were not before the Court in the manner required by the special procedure, thereby exceeding the limits of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Interference under Articles 226 and 227 was warranted, and the impugned findings could not be allowed to affect the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the challenged findings were declared inoperative against the petitioner and other non-parties to the special case, while the revenue authorities were directed to act in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A judgment in a special case under Section 90 and Order XXXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 binds only the parties to the written agreement and cannot prejudice persons who were not parties or were denied notice; where a subordinate court ignores this procedural framework and affects third-party rights, the High Court may intervene under Articles 226 and 227.

---