N. P. Singh, J. - (1.) Speical leave granted.
(2.) 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. By the impugned order the learned Judge has held that the trial Court could not have entertained the application filed on behalf of the appellant, for recall of the order recording a compromise alleged to have been entered between the appellant and the respondent.
(3.) 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 compromise was filed, on behalf of the appellant, saying that both parties have entered into a compromise on the basis whereof the appellant had delivered the possession of the disputed land to the respondent. A prayer was made that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the suit be dismissed. It may be mentioned that the said petition had not been signed by the contesting respondent or by his counsel. It appears that one Shri Soran Ram, Advocate, had made a note - 'Thumb impression has been marked in my presence' - meaning thereby that thumb impression had been given by the appellant in his presence. On the same day the learned Subordinate Judge passed the following order:- "Compromise deed Ex. C, tendered by plaintiff Banwari Lal. Statement of the Counsel for the plaintiff is also recorded to that effect. The counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the suit of the plaintiff to be dismissed as withdrawn as per compromise deed Ex. C. The possession of the property has already been delivered to the defendant, and defendant No. 2 Smt. Chando Devi is in possession of the disputed land as owner as per compromise deed. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as per compromise deed Ex. C. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly." ;