His companynsel informed him that the suit had been dismissed as withdrawn.
Statement of the Counsel for the plaintiff is also recorded to that effect.
It may be mentioned that the said petition had number been signed by the companytesting respondent or by his companynsel.
On the same day the learned Subordinate Judge passed the following order Compromise deed Ex.
The suit in question had been filed on behalf of the appellant on 14.9.1990.
It appears that on 27.2.1991 a petition of companypromise was filed, on behalf of the appellant, saying that both parties have entered into a companypromise on the basis whereof the appellant had delivered the possession of the disputed land to the respondent.
Further details of fraud were mentioned in the said petition and it was stated that as the alleged companypromise itself was void, illegal and against the requirement of Rule 3 of Order 23 of the CPC hereinafter referred to as the Code , the order recording such companypromise be recalled and suit be restored and be heard on merit.
On 3rd April, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff appellant in the said suit that he had engaged Shri Soran Ram, Advocate, Karnal, to appear on his behalf, who had told the appellant that the date fixed for the hearing of the suit was 5.3.1991.
Against that order a revision application was filed before the High Court on behalf of the respondent.
C, tendered by plaintiff Banwari Lal.
He directed restoration of the suit to its original number.
2 Smt.
Hence the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as per companypromise deed Ex.
When the appellant went to him on 5.3.1991 the companynsel informed him that the case had been adjourned to 2.4.1991.
C. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Then he approached his companynsel aforesaid Shri Soran Ram along with Shri I.D. Swamy, a retired IAS Officer.
About his companynsel aforesaid Shri Soran Ram, it was said that the appellant had learnt that he had cheated several persons and because of that a case had been registered against him.
The appellant got the records of the case inspected which revealed that Shri Soran Ram, Advocate of the appellant, in companylusion with defendant No.
A prayer was made that in view of the companypromise arrived at between the parties the suit be dismissed.
2 of the said suit had played a fraud on the appellant by filing a fabricated petition of companypromise although numbercompromise had been effected between the appellant and the respondent.
The Counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the suit of the plaintiff to be dismissed as withdrawn as per companypromise deed Ex.
C. The possession of the property has already been delivered to the defendant and Defendant No.
By the impugned order the learned Judge has held that the Trial Court companyld number have entertained the application filed on behalf of the appellant, for recall of the order recording a companypromise alleged to have been entered between the appellant and the respondent.
P. Singh, J. Special leave granted.
This appeal has been filed for setting aside an order passed by the High Court on the revision application filed on behalf of the respondent.
On 2.4.1991 the appellant learnt from the cause list that the case was number on the cause list.
Chando Devi is in possession of the disputed land as owner as per companypromise deed.
