MUNSHI SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant filed a revision under Section 48 Consolidation of Holdings Act before a Director. On the date fixed for the hearing the Appellant and his counsel apparently were absent and compromise undoubtedly signed by both and Respondents was presented before the Director and he accepted it and decided the revision application according to its terms. More than three months later, the Appellant applied to him to review his order on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud inasmuch as the compromise application did not actually contain the terms agreed upon between the parties. That application was dismissed by the Director and the Appellant applied for certiorari which has been refused by our brother G.C. Mathur.

(2.) The Appellant's remedy was to sue under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act for the setting aside of the order passed by the Director on the ground of fraud. When this remedy was available to him he was not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Whether fraud had been committed or not was a highly controversial matter which could not be satisfactorily disposed of on the basis of mere affidavits and a regular suit was the proper remedy of the Appellant. It is immaterial that the order passed by the Director was an ex-parte order because the Appellant did not seek its being set aside on that ground. He applied for its being set aside on the only ground that it had been obtained by fraud. The application was for review but it has not been shown to us that order 47 Rule 1 applies to a proceeding under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Moreover, even if it does apply no case for review was made out. The Appellant could not say that with due diligence he could not discover that the compromise on which he and his counsel put their signatures did not really contain the terms agreed upon between the parties. He could not say that even with due diligence he could not discover that fraud had been practiced upon the court. Not only could he have got the compromise read by some person if he was illiterate but also his counsel should not have put his signature on it without reading it and moreover both should have been pre sent in the court when it was presented before the Director for acceptance. The Appellant failed twice and could not make out a case of review even if order 47 Rule 1 applied.

(3.) No justification, therefore, existed for refusal of the Director being quashed by certiorari and we dismiss this special appeal summarily.