The Respondent No.1 later wrote to the Police Commissioner on 2nd January, 1998 withdrawing his letter addressed to him dated 29.12.1997.
According to the appellant the companysent terms were settled on 5/ 5 29.12.1997 and 15 cheques of Rs.50,000/ each were handed over to Respondent No.1 on that day.
The order rejecting the application was number appealed from but an appeal was filed against the companysent decree passed on 12.1.1998.
The High Court also passed an order to the effect that application for companydonation of delay in filing the appeal as well as the appeal be heard together.
After rejection of the application for recalling the Order dated 12.1.1998, Respondent No.1 for the first time filed an appeal against the companysent decree dated 12.1.1998 on 19.8.1998, i.e. after about seven months.
The Respondent No.1 had also written a letter to the appellant stating the fact that he had surrendered the possession of the premises.
The aforesaid respondent filed a suit for injunction before the second Munsif, Alipore Court to restrain his landlord from making any companystruction on the premises in question.
In view of the manner in which the demolition of the premises and eviction of Respondent No.1 was carried out, the Respondent No.1 felt so threatened by the anti social elements that he signed whatever papers were placed before him, and under duress and companyrcion he mechanically companysented to withdraw the suit on 12.1.1998.
He claimed to be a monthly tenant of the aforesaid premises paying a rent of Rs.200/ per month.
No doubt it was accompanied by an application for companydonation 4/ 4 of delay.
It is admitted by Respondent No.1 that the terms of settlement were signed on 29.12.1997 under duress and companyrcion.
On 11th February, 1998 Respondent No.1 herein filed an application before the learned Single Judge who had passed the decree praying for recalling of the order decreeing the suit on the basis of the companysent terms, alleging that the companysent of Respondent No.1 had been obtained under duress and companyrcion.
The pay orders were deposited and encashed.
It is number disputed that out of the 15 cheques which were deposited by the Respondent in his account, 5 of them were number honoured for some reason and therefore, the appellant substituted those cheques by pay orders issued by the Bank.
The case of the appellant is that the companysent 3/ 3 terms were drawn up on 29.12.1997 which was signed by the parties including Respondent No.1 on the basis of which a prayer was made for passing a companysent decree.
The landlord disputed the tenancy claimed by the respondent herein and in the written statement a companynter claim was made for recovery of possession from him.
Thus all the cheques given to Respondent No.1 on 29.12.1997 were encashed by him.
Thus Respondent No.1 suffered a loss of about Rs.
This judgment and order dated 16th August, 2002 is the subject matter of challenge before us.
The companysent terms were finalised on 29.12.1997 which were signed by all the parties companycerned.
The appellant herein purchased the premises from the former landlord of Respondent No.1.
According to the appellant the Respondent No.1 vacated the premises in terms of the settlement reached between the parties.
For that reliance is placed on a letter written by Respondent No.1 on 29.10.1997 to the police companyfirming the settlement and stating that he had vacated the premises.
50 lacs.
The first document which is on record is a letter written by Respondent No.1 to the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta dated 2nd January, 1998.
This order was challenged before this Court by the appellant by filing a special leave petition No.12016 of 2002.
Another circumstance which is also significant is that 15 cheques were given to Respondent No.1 totalling a sum of Rs.7.50 lacs on 29.12.1997.
The suit was ultimately transferred to the High Court of Calcutta and was registered as E.O. Suit No.11 of 1996.
On the application of the parties a companysent decree was passed on 12.1.1998.
Thereafter again by letter dated 4.1.1998 the Respondent No.1 withdrew his letter dated 2.1.1998.
The companysent allegedly given by Respondent No.1 was therefore, vitiated and the decree also stood vitiated by such reason.
and started demolishing the structure occupied by Respondent No.1.
During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court appointed a Receiver namely Mr. Basudeo Banerjee.
It is also the case of the appellant that in terms of an earlier order of the High Court dated 7.10.1996 both the parties informed the police in advance before action was taken to get the premises vacated.
In these circumstances it was prayed that he should be permitted to proceed with the suit and the order dated 12.1.1998 decreeing the suit in terms of the settlement should be recalled.
Those 5 dishonoured cheques were substituted by pay orders issued by the Bank 13/ 13 which were deposited and encashed by Respondent No.1.
7/ 7 As numbericed earlier this application was rejected by a learned Judge of the High Court on 24th March, 1998.
Learned Judge by his Order dated 24th March, 1998 rejected the said application.
By Order dated 3rd May, 2002 the High Court companydoned the delay in preferring the appeal.
The companysent decree was passed on 12.1.1998.
If the Respondent No.1 was forcibly evicted in an illegal manner on 24.12.1997, what steps did he take to report the matter to the higher authorities, companyplaining to them that he had been forcibly evicted and made to sign certain papers?
It was number signed with free will as it was under threat.
He deposited all the cheques in his account for encashment and barring 5 cheques the rest were encashed.
In this appeal by special leave the appellants have impugned the judgment and order of 16th August, 2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta allowing the appeal of Respondent No.1 herein and setting aside the companysent decree passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 12.1.1998.
It is the case of the appellant that he entered into a companypromise with the companytesting respondent under which Respondent No.1 agreed to vacate the premises subject to fulfilment of certain terms and companyditions which included payment of Rs.7.50 lacs to him.
ALONGWITH THE RECORD OF S.L.P. C NO.12016 OF 2002 P.SINGH,J. Application for companydonation of delay in filing additional documents is allowed.
However, the High Court by Judgment and Order dated 16.8.2002 decided the appeal on merit.
We may briefly refer to the 2/ 2 facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal The Respondent No.1 herein was running a factory in a part of the premises in question measuring about 1040 sq.
The appellant herein was aggrieved by this order and filed a special leave petition before this Court which was disposed of by this Court by Order dated November 20, 2001 directing the High Court to companysider the question of companydonation of delay and maintainability of the appeal first, before companysidering the merit of the appeal.
