CHANDRA DEO PANDEY Vs. SHEO DAS PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for cancellation of the compromise decree dated 22nd September 1962 in suit No. 403 of 1956 Rajeshwar Pandey and others v. Chandradeo Pandey and others.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this second appeal are simple but interesting. Series of litigation have been fought out between the parties ranging over 25 years without any decision on merits. Normally compromise is adjustment as a result of reciprocal feeling to bury the differences but this is a peculiar case where anxiety to adjust has been off set thrice.

(3.) THE lawyer has appeared as a witness and his statement has been characterised as candid and fair. He has admitted that he was engaged by the father of the appellant who had brought a Vakalatnama duly signed by the appellant. THE signature on the Vakalatnama is not disputed nor the authority of the father to engage the lawyer is challenged. THE plaintiff further does not challenge that the Vakalatnama authorised the lawyer to enter into compromise.