P.B.Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by special leave arises out of a suit brought by the Appellant Seth Ganesh Prasad against the Respondent Lal Umashanker Pratap Narayan Singh, claiming to recover the amount due on a mortgage executed in his favour by the Respondent on October 27, 1948. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Satna, who tried the suit, passed a decree in favour of the Appellant for Rs. 15,480 with proportionate costs.
(2.) THE Respondent then challenged the said decree by preferring an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court has allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court, and dismissed the Appellant's suit with costs. It is this decree which is challenged before us by Mr. Andley on behalf of the Appellant. Before proceeding to argue on the merits (of the judgment under appeal), Mr. Andley invited our attention to the fact that his preliminary grievance was that the High Court should not have dealt with the appeal before it on the merits without enquiring into the question as to whether the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled or not. It appears that the appeal was argued before the High Court on September 29 and 30, 1959, and it was then reserved for judgment. Before the judgment was pronounced, however, an application made by the Respondent on December 14, 1959, was received by the Registrar of the High Court. In this application, the Respondent had averred that he and the Appellant had arrived at a compromise and that, in consequence, no dispute remained between them. Accordingly, he requested that the High Court should pass an order dismissing his appeal with costs. This application was accompanied by an affidavit purporting to have been made by the Respondent.
(3.) WHEN the Respondent's said application and the accompanying affidavit were brought to the notice of the High Court, the High Court refused to take any notice of the application on the ground that its presentation was not proper. This order was passed on December 23, 1959 and on the same day, the judgment against which the present appeal has been brought before us, was pronounced.;