- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PERUSED the record. Learned Counsel for the appellant does not propose to file any counter-af fidavit and relies on materials on record. Sri Gajadhar Singh had been impleaded as a defendant-respondent in the second appeal. On 15-9- 1986, this Court on an application moved by Sri Klmb Singh and another, who had been brought on record as the heirs and legal representative of Shiam Lai, the plaintiff-appellant vide the order dated 11- 2-1986 had issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from alienating the land in dispute which was the subject-matter of the appeal. The aforesaid interim injunction was confirmed on 27-11-1987. In the affidavit filed in support of the interim injunc tion, it had been asserted that Gajadhar Singh in order to harass the original plaintiff was negotiating to sell the land in dispute. The parties to the appeal moved an application on 24-10-1991 praying that the appeal be decided in terms of com promise which may form part of the record. This application was supported by the joint affidavit of Khub Singh and Gajadhar Singh. The deed of compromise which was signed by all the parties to the appeal was sent for verification before the Munsif Hawaii, Aligarh who verified the same on 29-1-1992.
(3.) THE appeal which had been admitted on 4-5-1977 was finally disposed of vide the judgment and order dated 26-3-1992 holding that the compromise was lawful and was ordered to be recorded. This Court accordingly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Aligarh and ordered that the suit shall stand decreed in terms of compromise which shall form part of the decree. On 2nd June, 1992, the applicants came forward with an application that they had purchased the land in dispute from Gajadhar Singh under a registered sale deed dated 20th April, '1990 registered on 18th June, 1990 and had no knowledge of the pendency of the second appeal in this Court and therefore, could not seek their impleadment therein. The application further asserted that the parties to the second appeal has played fraud upon this Court as by the date the compromise had been entered into, Gajadhar had parted with his interest in the land in dispute and could not in any case represent them. It was asserted that Gajadhar did not have any legal right to execute any compromise deed in the second appeal and any such com promise is in effective and inoperative in the eye of law. The applicants have prayed that the order dated 6-3-1991, disposing of the second appeal be recalled and the appeal be heard on merits after impleading the applicants as respondents in the appeal.;