Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent filed the suit for eviction against the defendant appellant in the trial Court on the ground of second default committed by the defendant tenant. The defendant tenant submitted written statement denying the default upon which issues were framed by the trial Court. It appears that during pendency of suit parties settled their dispute and therefore, a written compromise was submitted in trial Court on 31.01.02 wherein defendant admitted that he has committed default in payment of rent second time, therefore, decree for eviction may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and as matter has been settled, defendant be permitted to remain in possession till 31.10.02 and defendant will pay entire arrears of rent within two months. On 31.01.2002, statements of both plaintiff and defendant were recorded in trial Court wherein defendant again admitted his second default.
(3.) However, it appears from the judgment dated 31.01.02 recorded in the order sheet itself that the trial Court after verifying the compromise between the plaintiff and defendant merely ordered that, accordingly suit of the plaintiff is decreed as per the compromise on the ground of second default. The trial Court specifically ordered that decree to be prepared in accordance with compromise.;