RAM LAL Vs. BRIJ KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEW facts giving rise to the present revision petition may be noticed :

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 4 sold land measuring 31 Kanals 2 Marias to defendant No. 5 through a registered sale deed dated May 4,1990 for Rs. 5,05,575/- Ram Lal and Dhari, plaintiff-petitioners herein filed a suit, on September 14,1990, for possession by way of pre-emption alleging themselves to be the tenants on the land which was the subject matter of sale. On January 8,1991, defendants 2 and 5 put in appearance in the suit and the case was adjourned to March 5,1991 for service of the remaining defendants. However, prior to that date, learned counsel representing the plaintiffs moved an application on February 27, 1991 for preponing the hearing of the case on the ground that a compromise had been effected between the parties and that in view of the said compromise, the suit be dismissed as withdrawn. It may be noticed that a copy of the compromise was also placed on the record. This application was allowed by the trial Court and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated February 27, 1991. The fact of withdrawal of the suit came to the notice of the plaintiffs on April 3, 1991 and immediately thereafter, they moved an application for setting aside the order dated February 27, 1991 vide which the suit had been dismissed as withdrawn, on the allegations that they never entered into any compromise nor had they authorised the counsel in that behalf. This, application was resisted by the defendants, However, the trial court placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 3376 of 1991 (Smt. Chando Devi v. Diwan Amar Nath and Anr.) decided on June 1, 1992, dismissed the said application by its order dated September 18,1092.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed. Admittedly, the facts of the present case are precisely the same as that of the case which was before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5299 of 1992 noticed above. In the present case, the compromise is thumb marked by one of the plaintiffs, namely, Ram Lal and it is not even signed by the counsel representing the plaintiffs in token of correctness of the contents of compromise, though the said compromise contains the signatures of the counsel who had put his signatures saying, "i know Shri Ram Lal son of Jhablu resident of Uchani Tehsil and District Karnal and he thumb marked in my presence". Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents could not bring any fact to my notice which may justify taking a view different than the one taken by the Supreme Court in the case noticed above.