BANWARI LAL Vs. CHANDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed for setting aside an order passed by the High Court on the revision application filed on behalf of the respondent. By the impugned order the learned Judge has held that the Trial Court could not have entertained the application filed on behalf of the appellant, for recall of the order recording a compromise alleged to have been entered between the appellant and the respondent.

(3.) ON 3rd April, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff -appellant in the said suit that he had engaged Shri Saran Ram, Advocate, Kamal, to appear on his behalf, who had told the appellant that the date fixed for the hearing of the suit was 5.3.1991. When the appellant went to him on 5.3.1991 the counsel informed him that the case had been adjourned td 2.4.1991. On 2.4.1991 the appellant learnt from the cause list that the case was not on the cause list. Then he approached his counsel aforesaid Shri Soran Ram alongwith Shri J.D. Swamy, a retired lAS Officer.' His counsel informed him that the suit had been dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant got the records of the case inspected which revealed that Shri Saran Ram, Advocate of the appellant, in collusion with defendant No. 2 of the said suit had played a fraud on the appellant by filing a fabricated petition of compromise although no compromise had been effected between the appellant and the respondent. Further details of fraud were mentioned in the said petition and it was stated that as the alleged compromise itself was void, illegal and against the requirement of Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code "), the order recording such compromise be recalled and suit be restored and be heard on merit. About his counsel aforesaid Shri Saran Ram, it was said that the appellant had learnt that he had cheated several persons and because of that a case had been registered against him.