AMRIT LACHHMAN Vs. RURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMRIT, minor, through his next friend Zile Singh, filed a suit for pre-emption regarding the sale made by his father. The vendee Shrimati Ruri resisted the suit and pleaded that she was a tenant of the land in dispute. On 17th May, 1967, Zile singh made an application in the Court that the matter had been compromised. Thereupon, the statements of Zile Singh and the vendee were recorded. Zile Singh stated that he gave up the suit and that was in the interest of the minor. Thereafter, the statement of the counsel for the vendee was recorded and naturally he was quite satisfied with the statement of Zile Singh, because the suit against the vendee was being dismissed. As a result of this compromise, the suit was dismissed on that very day.

(2.) AFTER about a fortnight, Amrit, through his mother Shrimati Zahro, made an application under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure for the review of the order dated 17th May, 1967, by which the minor's preemption suit had been dismissed. It was stated in the application that Zile Singh had colluded with the vendee with a view to injure the interests of the minor-plaintiff and he had entered into a secret agreement with the vendee to give up the suit. He and the vendee wrongly represented to the Court that the withdrawal of the suit was beneficial to the interests of the minor-plaintiff. This action of Zile singh was fraudulent, collusive and highly prejudicial to the interests of the minor and owing to the "collusion, fraud and gross negligence" of the next friend, the minor was not bound by the consent decree made on 17th May, 1967, by which his suit had been dismissed. A prayer was then made that the order dated 17th may, 1967, which was passed on the basis of the said fraudulent compromise, be set aside and the suit restored and then tried in accordance with law.

(3.) THIS application was opposed by the vendee on a number of grounds. It was said that the review application was not maintainable on the grounds alleged. It was further said that the effect of not giving the particulars of the fraud in the application was that the plea based thereon could not be looked into at all. It was also alleged that the order passed on 17th May, 1967, was neither fraudulent nor collusive.