Judgment

B.P. Singh, J.—Application for condo­nation of delay in filing additional documents is allowed.

2. In this appeal by special leave the appellants have impugned the judgment and order of 16th August, 2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta allowing the appeal of Respondent No. 1 herein and setting aside the consent decree passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 12.1.1998. We may briefly refer to the facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal:

3. The Respondent No.1 herein was running a factory in a part of the premises in question measuring about 1040 sq. ft. He claimed to be a monthly tenant of the aforesaid premises paying a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. The aforesaid respondent filed a suit for injunction before the second Munsif, Alipore Court to restrain his landlord from making any construction on the premises in question. The suit was ultimately transferred to the High Court of Calcutta and was registered as E.O. Suit No. 11 of 1996. The landlord disputed the tenancy claimed by the respondent herein and in the written statement a counter claim was made for recovery of possession from him. The appellant herein purchased the premises from the former landlord of Respondent No.1. It is the case of the appellant that he entered into a compromise with the contesting respondent under which Respondent No.1 agreed to vacate the premises subject to fulfilment of certain terms and conditions which included payment of Rs. 7.50 lacs to him. The case of the appellant is that the consent terms were drawn up on 29.12.1997 which was signed by the parties including Respondent No.1 on the basis of which a prayer was made for passing a consent decree. The consent decree was passed on 12.1.1998. According to the appellant the Respondent No.1 vacated the premises in terms of the settlement reached between the parties.

4. On 11th February, 1998 Respondent No.1 herein filed an application before the learned Single Judge who had passed the decree praying for recalling of the order decreeing the suit on the basis of the consent terms, alleging that the consent of Respondent No.1 had been obtained under duress and coercion. The consent allegedly given by Respondent No.1 was therefore, vitiated and the decree also stood vitiated by such reason. Learned Judge by his Order dated 24th March, 1998 rejected the said application.

5. After rejection of the application for recalling the Order dated 12.1.1998, Respondent No.1 for the first time filed an appeal against the consent decree dated 12.1.1998 on 19.8.1998, i.e. after about seven months. No doubt it was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court appointed a Receiver namely Mr. Basudeo Banerjee. The High Court also passed an order to the effect that application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as well as the appeal be heard together. The appellant herein was aggrieved by this order and filed a special leave petition before this Court which was disposed of by this Court by Order dated November 20, 2001 directing the High Court to consider the question of condonation of delay and maintainability of the appeal first, before considering the merit of the appeal. By Order dated 3rd May, 2002 the High Court condoned the delay in preferring the appeal. This order was challenged before this Court by the appellant by filing a special leave petition No. 12016 of 2002. However, the High Court by Judgment and Order dated 16.8.2002 decided the appeal on merit. This judgment and order dated 16th August, 2002 is the subject matter of challenge before us.

6. Before adverting to the findings recorded by the High Court a few other facts need to be noticed. According to the appellant the consent terms were settled on 29.12.1997 and 15 cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each were handed over to Respondent No.1 on that day. It is not disputed that out of the 15 cheques which were deposited by