RAMJANAM MISHRA Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

(2.) On the basis of this petition Misc. Case No. 3/97 was instituted and after notice the opposite party/plaintiff appeared and denied the allegations and has asserted that the compromise petition had been duly executed by the defendants who had also accepted the same by putting his signature and there is no fraud committed in preparing the compromise petition and getting a decree on that basis.

(3.) Both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their assertions and were heard at length by the learned court below. The core issue raised by the defendant is that the compromise petition did not bear his signature and he had never deposed before the Court in respect of the same and he had never put his signature below his deposition. It has been accepted by the defendant that he had bona fidelity given a Vakalatnama and a plain paper containing his signature to the plaintiff for the purpose of making Pairing in an encroachment case but it has been alleged that these documents had been used by the plaintiff for the purpose of fabricating the compromise petition and obtaining the compromise decree fraudulently. The plaintiff has denied these assertions and claimed that the signatures of the defendant on compromise petition are genuine and in support of his contention the plaintiff, besides other evidence, has exhibited the Vakalatnama in Title Suit No. 35/96 as Ext.-A, the signature of the defendant on the same as Ext.-B, compromise petition in Title Suit No. 35/ 96 as Ext.-C and defendant's signature on the compromise petition as Ext.-B/1.