SHOBHA RAM Vs. INAMUL HAQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording the compromise and deciding the second appeal as well as the cross-objection in terms of the condi tions of the compromise. This application has been signed by Shobha Ram, the appel lant, as well as his counsel, It has also been signed by one Safaruddin, special attorney of Inamul Haq and by the counsel for the res pondent. The application was sent to the court below for verification. There an objec tion was filed that Sephardim had no autho rity to compromise the matter on behalf of Inamul Haq. It appears that an application for amendment of the compromise petition was also filed. Consequently the Additional Civil Judge sent back the whole record to this Court. The said application for amend ment was dismissed by this Court on 6th April 1973. On that date Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the respondent, stated that the alleged compromise is not lawful. He prayed for and was allowed one month's time to file objections and affidavit. On 7th May, 1973, a counter-affidavit of Shidulnnisa, the wife of the respondent, was filed. The appellant has filed a rejoinder affidavit. Thereafter supplementary counter- affidavit and rejoinder affidavit were also filed.

(2.) THE respondent Is residing in Brunei, beyond Singapur, to earn his liveli hood. He is the owner of the shop in dis pute. The defendant appellant was the tenant in that shop. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was filed by the respondent for the ejectment of the appellant from that shop. That suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal the decree for ejectment of the defendant from the shop in suit was maintained. The decree with regard to other matters was partly modified. Against that decision the defendant preferred this second appeal and the plaintiff filed a cross abjec tion. During the pendency of the appeal and the cross objection the aforesaid compro mise petition was filed on 29th August 1972.

(3.) INAMUL Haq has also filed his affi davit in the case annexing thereto the origi nal letter dated 1st July, 1972, received by him in Bruinei whereby Safaruddin had de manded money from him. In that letter a reference was made to his pitiable financial condition. He had stated that in case the money was not sent to him he should not be blamed for his treachery. He also refer red to the fact of Shobha Teli meeting him in connection with the suit and that Shobha Teli having come to know that Safaruddin was in possession of a blank paper bearing the signatures of the plaintiff respondent was persuading Safaruddin to part with that paper against payment of certain money. This dis closed the intention of Safaruddin. The plaintiff had stated that he did not accede to the request of Safaruddin. Safaruddin, therefore, without consulting the plaintiff en tered into compromise with the defendant with a view to benefit himself and to cause loss to the plaintiff. The said action is said to be collusive. It is also stated that Safar uddin did not inform the plaintiff that he was entering into a compromise.