KIRTI PRASAD Vs. KRISHNA AUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent no.3.

(2.) This Second Appeal was initially dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.5.2006. Thereafter restoration application was filed which was dismissed on 15.3.2010 which order was set aside by the Supreme court through judgment dated 5.8.2011 given in Civil Appeal No.6383 of 2011. Supreme Court restored the appeal and directed the High Court to decide the same expeditiously.

(3.) In this Second appeal appellant and respondent nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs no. 2 and 3) entered into a compromise and it was agreed that appellant would surrender 141 sq. yard of land to respondent nos. 1 and 2 and retain only an area of 84 sq. yard. A joint affidavit alongwith application dated 8.1.2012 was filed. The affidavit was of substituted appellant and of Sanjeev Kumar. In the joint Affidavit in para-8 it was stated that a compromise deed had also been executed between the parties on 26.11.2011 which was annexed alongwith joint affidavit. That deed is dated 26.11.2011. Alongwith the said deed map has also been given. Sanjeev Kumar is newly elected Manager of respondent no.2 the Vidyalay. The Application dated 8.1.2012 alongwith joint affidavit has been signed by Shri Tarun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Shri Tarun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on 6.1.2012 on behalf of respondent no.2 Manager of the Institution. However, Shri P.N. Ojha, learned counsel had filed his vakalatnama on behalf of all the three respondents on 4.11.2011. Respondent no.2 in the vakalatnama was described as Fakir Chandra Arya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, through its Manager Barhapur District Bijnor however the name of the Manager is not mentioned and it is very difficult to decipher his name from the signature. In the written arguments filed by Shri P.N.Ojha, learned counsel, in para-3 it has been stated that unless respondent no.2 withdrew his vakalatnama which he had given in favour of Shri P.N. Ojha, he could not authorise Shri Tarun Kumar Srivastava to file the Vakalatnama. From this it appears that Shri P.N.Ojha, learned counsel is not disputing that the current Manager of the School has authorised Shri Tarun Kumar Srivastava to appear on his behalf and the compromise entered into by Sanjeev Kumar claiming himself to be Manager of Committee of Management of the College has also not been denied.