- (1.) THIS is an application under Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording the compromise and deciding the second appeal as well as the cross-objection in terms of the condi tions of the compromise. This application has been signed by Shobha Ram, the appel lant, as well as his counsel, It has also been signed by one Safaruddin, special attorney of Inamul Haq and by the counsel for the res pondent. The application was sent to the court below for verification. There an objec tion was filed that Sephardim had no autho rity to compromise the matter on behalf of Inamul Haq. It appears that an application for amendment of the compromise petition was also filed. Consequently the Additional Civil Judge sent back the whole record to this Court. The said application for amend ment was dismissed by this Court on 6th April 1973. On that date Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the respondent, stated that the alleged compromise is not lawful. He prayed for and was allowed one month's time to file objections and affidavit. On 7th May, 1973, a counter-affidavit of Shidulnnisa, the wife of the respondent, was filed. The appellant has filed a rejoinder affidavit. Thereafter supplementary counter- affidavit and rejoinder affidavit were also filed.
(2.) THE respondent Is residing in Brunei, beyond Singapur, to earn his liveli hood. He is the owner of the shop in dis pute. The defendant appellant was the tenant in that shop. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was filed by the respondent for the ejectment of the appellant from that shop. That suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal the decree for ejectment of the defendant from the shop in suit was maintained. The decree with regard to other matters was partly modified. Against that decision the defendant preferred this second appeal and the plaintiff filed a cross abjec tion. During the pendency of the appeal and the cross objection the aforesaid compro mise petition was filed on 29th August 1972. It is not disputed that the respon dent had executed a power of attorney in favour of his son-in-law, Safaruddin. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that Safaruddin by a letter threatened the respondent that he would join the appellant if he was not paid immediately by the res pondent. However, the respondent did not pay any heed to the illegal demand of Safaruddin. In para 8 of the counter-affi davit it is stated that the said Safaruddin in collusion with the appellant and against the interest of the respondent and without his consent filed a compromise application in the second appeal through another counsel ap pointed by Safaruddin. In para 9 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that neither the respondent nor his wife knew about the afore said compromise when it was filed in the Court. Again, in para 11 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the compromise filed by Safaruddin is against the interest of res pondent and has been filed by him in collu sion with the appellant and that Safaruddin did not consult the respondent or his wife for filing the compromise. Paragraph 7 of the rejoinder-affidavit is in reply to paragraph No. 8 of the counter-affidavit. In this para graph of the rejoinder-affidavit the alle gation regarding collusion is not repudiated. Similarly in para 10 of the rejoinder-affidavit, which is in reply to paragraph No. 11 of the counter-affidavit, the allegation regarding collusion is not repudiated. What the appellant alleges is that the compromise in question is a lawful compromise and if the respon dent is aggrieved by it his remedy is only by way of a separate suit.
(3.) INAMUL Haq has also filed his affi davit in the case annexing thereto the origi nal letter dated 1st July, 1972, received by him in Bruinei whereby Safaruddin had de manded money from him. In that letter a reference was made to his pitiable financial condition. He had stated that in case the money was not sent to him he should not be blamed for his treachery. He also refer red to the fact of Shobha Teli meeting him in connection with the suit and that Shobha Teli having come to know that Safaruddin was in possession of a blank paper bearing the signatures of the plaintiff respondent was persuading Safaruddin to part with that paper against payment of certain money. This dis closed the intention of Safaruddin. The plaintiff had stated that he did not accede to the request of Safaruddin. Safaruddin, therefore, without consulting the plaintiff en tered into compromise with the defendant with a view to benefit himself and to cause loss to the plaintiff. The said action is said to be collusive. It is also stated that Safar uddin did not inform the plaintiff that he was entering into a compromise.;