JUDGMENT :

J.M. Panchal, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against judgment dated March 29, 2007 rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Civil Revision No. 122 of 2005, by which order dated May 5, 2005, passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in MJC No. 3 of 2004 allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is confirmed and order dated December 16, 2003 in MJC No.35 of 2001 (new number 29 of 2003) dismissing the said case for default as well as order dated August 23, 2001 dismissing MJC No. 25 of 1998 for default are set aside and Civil Suit No.3A of 1996, which was dismissed as withdrawn on February 28, 1997, is restored.

3. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:

Late Mr. Shankar Lal, who was father of the respondent No. 1, filed Civil Suit No. 11 of 1955 for partition of the joint properties. The said suit was decreed on July 10, 1978. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred First Appeal No. 60 of 1978 before the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court set aside the decree passed by the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh decision vide order dated September 30, 1991. Against the order of remand, LPA No. 32 of 1991 was filed by father of the respondent No.1. On February 24, 1997 an application was filed by late Mr. Shankar Lal who was father of the respondent No.1 for withdrawal of LPA No.32 of 1991. The LPA was dismissed as withdrawn on the same date, i.e., February 24, 1997. In the year 1996 Civil Suit No. 11 of 1955 filed for partition of the joint properties was given new number as 3A of 1996. On February 28, 1997 another application was filed for withdrawal of Civil Suit No. 3A of 1996 by the father of the respondent No. 1. In view of the contents of the said application the Civil Suit was also dismissed as withdrawn on the same date, i.e., on February 28, 1997. On August 11, 1998, father of the respondent No. 1 expired. The respondent No.1 filed an application on September 2, 1998 for recalling the order dated February 24, 1997, passed in LPA No. 32 of 1991. There was delay in filing the application seeking recall of order dated February 24, 1997. Therefore, another application was filed for condonation of delay. The respondent No.1 alleged in her application that the application dated February 24, 1997, purportedly filed by her late father, for withdrawal of Letters Patent Appeal, in fact did not bear the signature of her father and, thus, signature of her father was forged. It was mentioned in the application that Mr. J.P. Sharma, advocate, had noted his appearance on behalf of her father in Civil Suit No. 3A of 1996 subsequently without seeking no objection certificate from the previous counsel, who had filed the plaint, and thereafter filed application for withdrawal of LPA, which was illegal and, therefore, the order dated February 24, 1997 disposing of the LPA as withdrawn should be recalled. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the parties and by order dated January 10, 2005 condoned the delay in filing the application seeking recall of order dated February 24, 1998 by which the LPA 32 of 1991 was dismissed as withdrawn and allowed the application of respondent No. 1 for recalling order dated February 24, 1997. While allowing the application filed by respondent No. 1 the High Court observed that a fraud was played upon the Court and directed the Registrar of the Court to file a complaint against Advocate Mr. J.P. Sharma and also against Advocate Mr. S.C. Goyal, who had identified the signature of late father of the respondent No. 1. The High Court also directed the Registrar to initiate criminal proceedings against the present appellant who was supposed to be the beneficiary of the act of forging for initiating criminal proceedings by filing a complaint.

4. The two a