GUNDA POORNACHANDER Vs. YANIGANDLA PUNNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 12-6-1988 made by the learned Principal District Judge at Nalgonda, in IA No.615 of 1996 in AS No.62 of 1993.

(2.) The facts in brief are that an application IA No.615 of 1996 was filed by the respondent herein, under Order 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to set aside the compromise decree dated 31-3-1995 on the ground that the Court cannot act upon the compromise memo filed by the Counsel as he had never instructed about the compromise and he never agreed for any terms of the compromise and that it has been done without his knowledge and the compromise decree is illegal and fraudulent.

(3.) The revision petitioner herein i.e., respondent before the Court below, had filed a counter opposing the same. It was stated that the compromise stated supra was arrived at with his consent and on instructions from the respondent herein. It was further stated that he had mentioned the fact of compromise in the affidavit filed along with the application at the time of withdrawing of costs of Rs.2,500/- which was in deposit in EP No.60 of 1993. It was further averred that the disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise was also mentioned in the affidavit. It was further stated that he had filed full satisfaction memo after withdrawing the money and he has got knowledge of the compromise and the application was filed only with a view to put him into trouble. It was further stated that in terms of the compromise in the appeal, a demand draft was taken for the balance and the xerox copy was also filed into the Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner (respondent in the present civil revision petition) has got issued a notice demanding the payment of money by 26-12-1995 for registration and thereupon a reply was given and these aspects go to show that the respondent herein has got full knowledge of the compromise and disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise and hence the application is not bona fide one and it is liable to be dismissed.