SAYED JAMAL AHMED Vs. SYED JAHUR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Let a Rule issue calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the impugned judgment should not be set aside as prayed for; or why such further or other orders should not be passed as to this court may seem fit and proper.

(2.) As agreed to by both the counsel for the parties, this matter is taken up for hearing. This matter arises out of a compromise stated to be arrived before the Lok Adalat in Title Suit No.313/87 before the Munsiff No. 1. Karimganj. The compromise stated to be arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat is Annexure-2 to the revision application. Both the sides agree that this cannot be compromise petition in the suit. There must have been some mistake in regard to compromise.

(3.) In that view of the matter, this compromise is set aside and as provided by Section 20 (6) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the matter shall go back to the trial court i.e. the court of the Munsiff No. 1 at Karimganj and the leamed Munsiff No. 1 at Karimganj shall try the suit i.e. Title Suit No. 313/84 in accordance with law. The compromise petition, Annexure-2 to the Revision application before the Lok Adalat stands quashed.