LAWS(RAJ)-1959-10-20

ASSOOMAL Vs. TEKUMAL

Decided On October 06, 1959
ASSOOMAL Appellant
V/S
TEKUMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against an order of the learned City Munsif, Ajmer dated 30-6-1959.

(2.) Assumal was the defendant in a certain suit for recovery of money instituted by Tekumal and Pessumal. Learned counsel states that the number of the suit was 165/1959. On a certain date, Mr. Prabhudayal Bhargava Pleader appeared for the defendant with the petition of compromise with the plaintiff and the suit was decreed in the terms of the compromise on 14-3-59. On 3-4-1959, Assumal made an application for setting aside the decree invoking provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 and section 151 C. P. C. on the allegation that he had never engaged Mr. Prabhudayal Bhargava and that he had no authority to enter into the compromise. It was alleged that Assumal never agreed to engage Mr. Prabhudayal Bhargava. It was mentioned that he had engaged Shri Durga Prasad in some other case in a different court and had signed on the Vankalatnama for that purpose and the said signed Vakalatnama of Assumal may have been used fraudulently by Dufga Prasad for the engagement of Mr. Prabhu Dayal Bhargava and obtaining the consent decree. The plaintiff traversed these allegations and raised an objection that the allegations could form the subject of a separate suit but could not be enquired into in a miscellaneous application by the plaintiff (sic) (defendant). The learned Munsif was of the opinion that the decree being a consent decree, the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 were not applicable. He also held that the various complicated questions arising on the allegations of Assumal could only be decided in a regular suit. He accordingly dismissed the application by order of 30-6-1959. Assumal has filed this revision.

(3.) It is urged on his behalf that there was no consent in the present case and, therefore, it was a case of fraud having been committed on the court. He relied on Hamira Sibua v. Lalu Ganga, AIR 1954 Madh B 81, for the contention that the matter could be enquired into by the court in exercise of powers under section 151 C. P. C.