S.K.Katriar, J.

1. This application under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by respondent No. 1 of F.A. No. 285 of 1980 (Syeda Kamruddin Ashraffv. Bibi Syeda Khatoon and ors.), challenging adjustment of the appeal which has ended in a compromise between the parties vide order dated 9-4-1997.

2. This application has been filed by the respondent No. 1 of the appeal who was a co-plaintiff. I shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the appeal. Respondent No. 1 had instituted Title Suit No. 157/69/160/76 along with others which was decreed by judgment dated 4-2-1980, and the plaintiffs were given about 90% of the suit property which is a plot of land in the township of Patna measuring about 80 decimals of land. The defendants preferred the present F.A No, 235 of 1980 in this Court. The plaintiffs are the respondents in the appeai. Some of the respondent died during the pendency of the appeal and the heirs have been substituted. The respondents had jointly fought the suit as plaintiffs, and were represented by the same Counsel and were together in the appeal till its disposal by order dated 9-4-1997. The respondents have thereafter divided in two camps. Whereas respondent No. 1 has challenged the validity of the compromise decree, the remaining respondents stand by the same. The appeal remained pending in this Court ever since 1980,and not much of progress took place excepting orders on substitution matters were passed from time to time, nor did the plaintiffs-respondents take any steps in the trial Court for Takhtabandi and preparation of the final decree. Ultimately, a joint compromise petition under Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. was filed in this Court on 11-3-1997, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 9-4-1997, and the appeal was disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition.

3. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 (Bibi Syeda Khatoon) filed an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. in the appeal on the ground that she had never subscribed to the compromise petition, was not a party to the same, and was an act of fraud attributable to the appellants. The same was originally registered as Civil Review No. 196 of 1998, and was converted into an application under Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. and has been registered as i,A. No. 196 of 2000 in the appeal itself. By order dated 12-7-2000, the Registrar-General of this Court was directed to conduct a detailed inquiry in the matter and submit a report within six weeKs He has since submitted his report dated 5-2-2001, whereby he has found that respondent No. 1 had appeared in the First Appeal through Sri Ramchandra Lal Das, Advocate, was a party to the compromise petition in terms of which the appeal was disposed of, and no fraud was played on her.

4. During the course of inquiry, respondent No. 1 examined three a witnesses, and the appellants examined four witnesses. Respondent No. 1 alone has challenged the compromise. The remaining respondents own and reaffirm the compromise and did not examine any witness. However, respondent No. 3 (a) (Shaheen Ashraf)had sent a fax message dated 29-8-2000 from Canada to the Registar-General of this Court which is on record and has been noticed in (he inquiry report The first witness on behalf of the respondent No. 1 is Mahtab Ahmad who is her son. He is on the very face of it an interested witness and striver, to support his mothers case In a clumsy manner. The pre varication in his deposition is discernible on a plain reading of it, and enquivocates between admission of the compromise at one place and denial at another. He admits the signature of his mother on the Vakalatnama and the compromise petition at one place and denies at another. This witness is, therefore, untrustworthy. Syed Shamim Ahmad is the second witness on behalf of respondent No. 1 and is her son. He is obviously an interested witness. It appears that he has come to controvert