A compromise decree obtained by fraud can be set aside under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions of Order 32, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory and must be strictly complied with before a guardian-ad-litem can enter into a compromise on behalf of a minor.

C.P.Sinha, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who had brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 513/- and odd on the basis of a hand-note against respondents 1 and 2, respondent No. 2, brother of respondent No. 1, was a minor then. The trial Court dismissed the suit with costs and the appellant (the plaintiff) preferred an appeal to the District Judge which was numbered as Money Appeal No. 5 of 1947. Respondent No. 2, who was respondent No. 1 in the said money appeal, was described in the memorandum of appeal as being under the guardianship of one Babu Gajadhar Prasad, Pleader guardian appointed by Court. It appears that this guardian was appointed in the Court of first instance. Notices of the appeal were served upon the respondents and the hearing of the appeal was postponed from time to time and ultimately the 20th of February 1948, was fixed for the hearing of the appeal. On the 18th of February, 1948, however, the order-sheet records the following order:

"Parties have put in a compromise petition. Respondent No. 2, has put in a petition praying that he may be appointed guardian of minor respondent No. 1. It is stated in the petition that he has no interest adverse to the minor and that he is the karta of the family. Another petition for permission to compromise has also been put in. Put up on the date fixed."

On the 20th of February 1948, the order of the Court runs thus:

"Petition of compromise and other petitions filed on 18-2-1948, are put up. Heard appellants lawyer. The appointment or the Pleader Guardian ad litem is cancelled. The respondent No. 2, is appointed G.-A.-litem of the respondent No. 1. The appeal is permitted to be compromised. The appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise that be recorded."

The compromise was to the effect that the appellant had remitted Rs. 50.00 out of the costs and that the respondents were to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff-appellant and the remaining costs within three months from the late of the compromise, that is, the 18th of February 1948, failing which the plaintiff-appellant was to realise the same by execution.

2. On the 16th of March 1948, the present respondent No. 1, Sitaram Kumhar, who was respondent No. 2, in the said money appeal, filed an application under Sec.151, of the Code of Civil Procedure in the money appeal for setting aside the compromise decree, which, according to him had been obtained by fraud. It is alleged in his petition that the plaintiff-appellant had represented, to him that he would withdraw the appeal, provided the respondent remitted his costs, and that the plaintiff-appellant had obtained his thumb impression on blank papers and blank printed Vakalatnama saying that the petition for withdrawing the appeal had to be filed through another Pleader. It was asserted by the respondent No. 1 that the blank paper bearing his thumb mark was utilised for the compromise petition, leading to the consent decree. It was further alleged that the respondent No. 1, came to know of this fact on the 26th February 1948, when the appellant threatened him with realisation of the decree in the money suit. The plaintiff-appellant objected to the decree being set aside and alleged that the compromise was a bona fide one and there was no fraud committed by him. The Court below started miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1948, under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that fraud had been perpetrated in the matter of compromise and that the respondent No. 1 had never consented and could not have consented to the terms embodied in the petition of compromise. In that view of the matter, the Court below allowed the application under Sec.151 of the Code, set aside the order of that Court, dated the 20th of February 1948, rejected the petitions filed on the 18th of February, 1948, and has restored the money appeal to its original file and number. The plaintiff-appellant having felt aggrieved has filed the present