- (1.) The matter comes up for consideration of an application (IA No.211/2014) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred on behalf of the appellants with a prayer for condoning the delay of 750 days in filing the present appeal.
(2.) In the application (IA No.211/2014) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is avered by the appellants that the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent No.1 on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties on 25.07.2011. It is contended that in fact no such compromise was at all entered into between the appellants and the respondent No.1 and the appellants were not at all aware about the filing of the said compromise and passing of the impugned judgment and decree by the trial court in the matter. It is further contended in the application that in fact the brother of the appellant No.1, who is close friend of respondent No.1 and having business relation with him and was looking after the litigation on behalf of the appellants, has obtained their signatures on blank papers. Whenever, the appellants enquired about the position of the suit, the brother of the appellant No.1 informed that the same is going on. However, in the meantime, in connivance with the respondent No.1, the brother of the appellant No.1 has submitted the compromise deed before the trial court by preparing it on blank papers signed by the appellants.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that when the compromise was produced before the trial court on 25.07.2011 the appellants were not present and the brother of the appellant No.1 viz. Satya Narayan has put his signature on the order-sheets. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that when the trial court has decreed the suit on the basis of compromise deed on 03.12.2011 then also the appellants were not present in the court and, therefore, they were not aware about the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 03.12.2011. It is submitted that for the first time the appellants came to know about the impugned judgment and decree when the summons of the execution proceedings were served upon them.;