TAJ GLASS WORKS LTD Vs. USHAR TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the defendants, whose petition to set aside the compromise decree in the case on the ground of fraud, has been dismissed by the court below.

(2.) The defendants are The Taj Glass Works Ltd., of Hyderabad. They had contracted for sale of their glassware with the plaintiffs, who are a firm of traders at Ernakulam. On the allegation that some agency commission and damages etc., had accrued due, the plaintiffs filed this suit on 7-5-1954 for realisation from the defendants, of a sum of Rs. 2,052 - 12 As. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs, applied for and obtained attachment before judgment of valuable glassware of the defendants, lying in the goods shed of the Ernakulam Railway Station and they were brought to court on 21-6-1954. According to the defendants, they had, on receipt of the summons deputed their employee, Narayanaswamy to engage local counsel on their behalf for contesting the case and entrusted to him for the purpose, a vakalath form signed by their managing director S. R. Kimtee on 30--1954, with the counsels name left blank. Instead of carrying out his instructions, however, he entered into, a compromise arrangement with the plaintiffs, whereby they were to take all the glassware attached and brought into court apparently in satisfaction of the plaint claim, & so got the case disposed off as settled between the parties on the day fixed for the defendants appearance, viz., 1-8-1954. The compromise petition was signed by, Narayanaswamy as if he could and did represent the defendants and was got attested by Mr. V. Bhaskara Menon, Advocate, engaged under the vakalath form aforesaid.

(3.) It would appear that on 5-8-1954 before the compromise petition was filed into court Narayanaswamy suggested by letter that the suit and attachment matter had better be compromised with the plaintiffs but the defendants by telegram and confirmation letter had turned down the suggestion. Vide Exts. A to C. And on 13-8-1954 after the compromise petition had been filed and accepted by court, Narayanaswamy went to the extent of informing the defendants that the law firm of Bhasker and Jacob had been engaged to contest the case and the hearing stood adjourned to 23-9-1954. Vide Ext. G letter. Not satisfied with the progress of the case, the defendants sought to get into touch with the law firm of Bhasker and Jacob direct but their communication returned undelivered saying there was no such firm. Vide Ext. El postal cover. It was thereafter, on 11-11-1954, that the defendants came to the court, with prayer to set aside the judgment and decree in the case based on the compromise petition of - 11-8-1954 and they relied upon S.151 and O.47, R.1 of C. P. C The defendants managing director S. R. Kimtee also gave evidence as Pw. 1 in support of the petition and swore during the course of his deposition that Narayanaswamy their employee had acted without the defendants authority in signing the compromise petition and had been already discharged from service for the fraud he had played in this and other matters.