LARAITI DEVI Vs. SIA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's application in revision. She filed a suit against the defendant, now opposite party, for the recovery of Rs. 8497/-. On the date fixed for final hearing of the case, a compromise purporting to have been arrived at between the parties was filed in Court. The compromise was signed by the vakil for the plaintiff, the defendant himself and the defendant's counsel. The compromise was put up before the Court and was duly verified on behalf of the plaintiff by her counsel and by the defendant personally. The Court on 30-1-51 passed an order in these terms: "Parties file compromise. Order The suit is decreed in terms of the compromise, 35B which shall be part of the decree."

(2.) A formal decree was drawn up and was signed on 5-2-51. On 9-2-51 the defendant filed an implication headed as an application under Section 151 Civil P. C., in which he alleged that the plaintiff's son had persuaded him to sign the compromise by practising fraud and misrepresentation. He further said that he had not been allowed to consult his counsel and had signed the compromise without understanding its contents. At the time of the verification also the compromise had not been read out to him. The compromise had thus been obtained by practising fraud on him as well as on the Court, and was liable to be set aside. He also urged that the decree had been passed without complying strictly with the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C. He, therefore, prayed that the decree be set aside. In support of this application he filed an affidavit.

(3.) The plaintiff contested the application and denied all the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. She said that the compromise was a valid one and that the defendant had settled the terms willingly and after understanding each one of them. He had not only signed the compromise petition but had also verified it before the Court. He was therefore not entitled to get the decree passed on the basis of the compromise set aside by filing an application like the one he had filed. It was also urged on her behalf that Section 151 did not apply at all and if the defendant wanted to have the compromise act aside on the ground of fraud he should have sought his remedy in a regular suit.