TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J. :

This Court has heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and has considered the relevant materials on record.

It may be noted here that when the learned Advocate for the appellants was arguing the matter over a number of days, certain learned Advocates for some of the defendants/respondents had appeared but after the learned Advocate for the appellants completed his submissions time was sought for on behalf of some of the respondents to enable their learned Advocates to argue the matter but ultimately no one appeared to argue the matter on behalf of any of the respondents. Thus, this Court was compelled to conclude the hearing of the case after hearing the learned Advocate for the appellants on the merits of the case.

The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:

The plaintiffs/appellants and the porforma defendant/respondent Smt. Ranju Sarkar filed a suit being title suit No. 50 of 2005 against the defendants/respondents praying, inter alia, for a decree declaring that the compromise decree passed in a certain T.S. No. 90 of 2004 which was fraudulently obtained by the defendants is void and/or not binding on the plaintiffs and the deed executed by