ORDER

Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. By consent of learned senior Counsel for the parties these appeals are heard finally and are being disposed of by this order.

4. The short question is whether the application being I.A. No. 1010 of 1998 in O.S. No. 662 of 1998 moved on 11th November 1998 before the trial Court challenging the compromise decree on the grounds mentioned therein, requires to be reconsidered on merits after hearing the parties concerned. It is contended that Appellant No. 2, who is the wife of Appellant No. 1 who is allegedly mentally unsound, had entered into a compromise with the Respondent which was contrary to law. She, therefore, claims to be the guardian of Appellant No. 1 and moved the trial Court for setting aside the said decree. The learned trial Judge, without following the appropriate procedure as laid down by proviso to Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) set aside the decree. In the revision filed by the Respondent-decree holder the High Court rightly held by the impugned judgment and even on consent by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the procedure adopted by the trial Court was not corre