The main legal point established in the judgment is that no relief could have been granted in favor of a party to the suit against a third party, and the court emphasized the scope of relief that could be granted in such circumstances.

( 1 ) IN the first appeal [fao (OS ). No. 77/2000] order dated 1. 3. 2000 and in the second appeal [fao (OS) No. 235/2000] order dated 10. 3. 2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Suit No. 2274/97 are under challenge at the behest of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that on 27. 12. 1997 Hari Chand Sachdeva filed a suit in this Court impleading Smt. Shakuntla Devi as defendant No. 1 and Rakesh sachdeva, defendant No. 2 in which he prayed for passing a decree dissolving the partnership from the date of notice given by him to Shakuntia Devi or from such date, as may be deemed just and proper by the Court. In addition, he prayed for: a preliminary decree against the defendants to render accounts of the partnership; a decree for the amounts to be found due to the plaintiff from the defendants; and a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in his possession in respect of the Petrol Pump being run by the name of raj Nath Motors, Moti Bagh, New Delhi.

( 3 ) AT this stage, it may be mentioned that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short "bpcl") was not a party to the suit. No relief had been claimed in the suit against BPCL. Dealership Agreement with BPCL earlier was under the joint signatures of Hari Chand and one Sanjeev Behl, on the basis of which licence to run the Petrol Pump had been granted by BPCL. Sanjeev Behl had resigned from partnership and consequently BPCL had appointed Hari Chand as the sole licensee. For the purpose of deciding this appeal, we need not state inter se dispute between shakuntia Devi and Hari Chand except by making a reference to the joint statement of the plaintiff and defendants recorded in Court, which ultimately led to the passing of the two orders.

( 4 ) THE defendants were served in the suit. On the interim applications also notices were issued. No written statement was filed by the defendants. On 11. 5. 1998 an application (I. A. 435/98) was filed by the defendants under Section 8 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for stay of the proceedings in the suit and for reference of all disputes for Arbitration as per the arbitration agreement. A few orders were passed from time to time. First order was passed on 20. 5. 1998 on the statement made by learned Counsel for the defendants that they shall not take any cash from the premises in question. It also appears that an intention was expressed by the parties to settle the matter and ultimately on 10. 1. 2000, on which date the plaintiff Hari Chand and defendants Shakuntia Devi and Rakesh Sachdeva were present in Court, a compromise is alleged to have been arrived at. The parties did not file any separate application for recording compromise. The terms of the compromise were also not separately reduced into writing. The Court, however, proceeded to record a composite statement of Hari Chand, plaintiff and Shakuntla devi, defendant No. 1 and Rakesh Sachdeva, defendant No. 2. After composite statement of the parties was recorded Shri Debasish Mohanty, Advocate, who was present in Court, was appointed as a Local Commissioner with direction that in presence of the parties the Local Commissioner will prepare an inventory of the goods and that the same will be placed on the suit record. Case was adjourned to 11. 1. 2000. The order passed on 10. 1. 2000 reads:

"mr. HARI Chand Sachdeva, plaintiff ispresentin Court. Mr Ramesh Sachdeva, defendant No. 2 is also present in Court. Let all the parties sign the compromise entered into between the parties. The parties, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the suit as well as other legal proceedings pending between the parties in any other Court in respect of the business of the petrol pump by the name of M/s. Raj Nath motors at Shanti Path, Moti Bagh, New Delhi, on an experimental basis for a period of one year, have agreed to a compromise, which is being recorded separately. The compromise un