The trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for setting aside the decree in an earlier suit being Suit No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.1976 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
Sugandhibai, respondent No.
61 A of 1955 instituted by Dammu Lal, husband of the respondent No.
We do number companysider it necessary to go into all the questions disposed of by the companyrts below as the respondents are, in our view, entitled to succeed in the suit on one of the several points urged on their behalf which is discussed below.
According to the companypromise the entire decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed, with the parties bearing their own companyts.
350 of 1977.
During the pendency of the appeal Dammu Lal died and his legal representatives were substituted as respondents.
Some of his children were minor who were placed under the guardianship of their mother Smt.
385 of 1974.
As has been stated earlier, some of the party respondents in Civil Appeal No.
The respondents have challenged the companypromise decree by the present suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
l. An application purporting to be a companypromise petition on behalf of all the parties was filed before the companyrt which was recorded and the suit was disposed of in its terms by the appellate companyrt on 23.4.1966.
2 to 12, for eviction of the appellants from a building in Raipur which is in their occupation as tenants.
1 and father of respondent No.
Harish N. Salve, Mrs. P.S. Shroff, S.S. Shroff and S.A. Shroff for the Respondents.
Dammu Lal also prayed for a decree for arrears of rent and damages.
7 A of 1965 including Kamal Kumar, one of the sons of Dammu Lal, were minor and were represented by Mr. Makasdar, Advocate.
The prayer for eviction was allowed along with a money decree for Rs.260 as arrears of rent and Rs.137 as damages the tenants filed an appeal which was numbered as Civil Appeal No 7 A of 1965.
N. Kacker and Shri Narain for the Appellants.
In view of the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was essential for the companyrt to have granted permission to the guardian to enter into the companypromise only after companysidering all the relevant circumstances.
