( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of an application filed by respondent No. 3, New. Friends Co-operative House Building Society ("the Society"), praying for setting aside and recalling the order dated 10. 12. 99 passed by this Court disposing of the appeal in terms of the compromise filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction, alleging therein that he was entitled to the plot No. C-770 measuring 500 sq. yards, which was allotted to his mother Smt. Shanti Devi Malhotra, by the Society. The plaintiff prayed for setting aside the resolution dated 28. 5. 77 of the Society as also the order dated 23. 1. 76 of the Chairman of the Society permitting exchange of this plot No. C-770, measuring 500 sq. yards allotted to said Smt. Shanti Devi with the plot No. A-249, (300 sq. yards) allotted to Mrs. Raj Kumari Malhotra by the Society, being illegal and void.

( 3 ) IT was pleaded in the suit that Sh. B. D. Mallick applied for the membership of the society in 1958; he died on 18. 8. 64; his widow Smt. Shanti Devi Malhotra applied for substitution of her name in records of the society, as a nominee of her husband, which was allowed, and plot No. C-770 was allotted to Smt. Shanti Devi. She had re- married to Dr. P. N. Rampal in London and became a non-resident; she also died in 1988. Smt. Raj Kumari was the allottee of the plot No. A-249 measuring 300 sq. yards in the same society. Smt. Shanti Devi and Mrs. Raj Kumari Malhotra applied for exchange of plot No. A-249 and C-770 between them, consequently a joint application was made by Smt. Shanti Devi and Mrs. Raj Kumari Malhotra, for exchange of plots which was allowed vide orders dated 23. 1. 76, and approved by the society vide its resolution dated 28. 5. 77. These orders were challenged in the suit. The defendants contested the same. The suit was dismissed by Mr. M. S. Rohella, Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dated 9. 1. 1991.

( 4 ) THE appellant/plaintiff thereafter filed the above an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 9. 1. 1991 impleading Dr. N. P. Mallick Ms. Nirmala Kumari Johnson, and Mrs. Raj Kumari Malhotra as respondents 1, 2 and 4 respectively and the society (applicants) as respondent 3.

( 5 ) IT may be mentioned here that respondent No. 3, the Society was duly served, but none appeared on their behalf on any of the dates as and when the appeal was taken up for hearing, despite the fact that it continued to be listed for several days.

( 6 ) APPELLANT and the respondents 1,2 and 4 moved the court praying for disposal of the appeal in terms of compromise, under which the appellant accepted, (i) the resolution dated 28. 5. 77 of the Society and (ii) the order dated 23. 1. 76 of the Chairman of the Society, as legal and binding between the parties. The Appellant /plaintiff further accepted that the plot No. C-770, (measuring 500 sq. yards) exclusively belongs to Mrs. Raj Kumari Malhotra, (respondent No. 4) without any claim or demand from the appellant or anybody else. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, namely, Dr. N. P. Mallick, Ms. Nirmala Kumari Johnson and Mrs. Raj Kumari Malhotra, on the other hand admitted and acknowledged the appellant Sh. Pran Nath Mallick, to be exclusive owner of the plot No. A-249, (300 sq. yards) without any claim or interest, on the said plot, from the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The appeal was disposed of vide order dated 10. 12. 99 in terms of the compromise.

( 7 ) IT may further be noticed that order dated 27. 2. 96 during the preliminary hearing of the appeal by Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Registrar (Vigilance) of Delhi High Court, had been appointed as receiver for both of the plots i. e. A-249 and C-770, who was duly empowered to take possession of the plots. Ever since the plots are in possession of. the Receiver.

( 8 ) CONSEQUENT