B.K. Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as evident from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioners filed original suit No. 150 of 1982 against the respondent No. 3 in the Court of Civil Judge Fatehgarh for recovery of a sum of Rs.17191. Another suit being suit No.113 of 1981 was filed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs.17000/-. While both the suits were proceeding simultaneously certain well wishers of the parties intervened and the matter was settled out side the Court as a result of which both the parties agreed to withdraw their respective suits filed by them. The petitioners on 10th May 1983 moved an application in their suit for decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties and on the same day an application 33Kha was filed in suit No. 113 of 1981 by the respondent No. 3 for withdrawing his suit under Order 23 Rule 1 C. P. C.A.. Since the Presiding Officer was on leave no order could be passed on the application 33Kha on 10th of May, 1983 and again on 24.5.1983 and 21.11.1983. In the meantime the application filed by petitioners for deciding their suit in terms of the comprise had already been allowed. The respondent No. 3 on 7.7.1983 filed an application 34Kha before the Civil Judge Fatehragh for withdrawal of his application 33Kha. The petitioners opposed the application 33Kha by filing their objection 35Kha. The Additional Civil Judge,Fatehgarh, respondent No. 2 by his order dated 17th May, 1986 allowed the application 34Kha and directed the suit to proceed. Aggrieved from the order of the respondent No. 2, the petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 87 of 1986 which was allowed by the Additional District Judge,Kannauj by his order dated 29th April, 1988 and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court with a direction that an enquiry be made for ascertaining whether the signature of the respondent No. 5 on the application 33Kha ad been obtained by fraud.
(3.) AFTER remand, the trial Court vide its order dated 16.9.1989 again maintained its earlier order and by order dated 30.8.1990 the revision preferred by the petitioners against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 Additional District Judge,Kannauj. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the orders dated 16.9.1989 and 30.08.1990(Annexure Nos.2 and 1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively.;