( 1 ) DELAY condoned.

( 2 ) LEAVE granted.

( 3 ) THE order of the High court disposing of the writ petition on the basis of a compromise is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. It was averred in this Court that the compromise was entered into between the parties by the lawyer Shri Kailash Nath Srivastava without any authority from the appellants and the appellants did not execute any vakalatnama in favour of the said advocate. In view of the allegations made, this court by order dated 15/4/1996 directed the District Judge, Faizabad to hold an enquiry and submit a report as to whether the appellants did authorise Shri Kailash Nath Srivastava to enter into the compromise and whether the appellants were put on notice of the compromise by the Advocate Shri Srivastava. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the learned District Judge gave opportunity to the parties and on the basis of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the appellants did not authorise Shri Srivastava to enter into the compromise on their behalf in the writ petition. He also further found that the appellants did not sign the compromise dated 3/4/1991 and did not execute vakalatnama in favour of Shri