M. Jagannadha Rao,c. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8. 10. 1995 in I. A. 338/95 in Suit NO. 635-A/84. The suit was one filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. It was filed by the 1st respondent, Mr. Prabhat Chand.

( 2 ) PRABHAT Chand (plaintiff-1st respondent), Smt. Kamla Devi (1st defendant) and Miss Manju Aggarwal (3rd defendant) were partners of M/s S. C. S. Publishers Distributors, under a deed dated 1. 3. 1977, having equal shares. It appears that the plaintiff, after serving notices dated 24. 5. 1983 and 11. 9. 1983, offered to retire from the firm and also sent reply notice dated 23. 9. 1983 on the defendants calling upon them to finalise the accounts and render the same to the plaintiff and pay his dues from the assets, goodwill and profits. On failure by the defendant, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. According to the plaintiff, his share in the assets and goodwill was Rs. 2. 50 lakhs plus interest.

( 3 ) THERE were certain orders of temporary injunction in I. A. 2005/84 against the defendants and a Local Commissioner was appointed to conduct inventory. Later in I. A. 2121/84 a Receiver was appointed to take possession of all the account books and for locking up the shop. Police aid was granted. Books of account were, it is stated, not produced before the Receiver.

( 4 ) IT appears that, before the learned Single Judge, the defendants offered to compromise the dispute. A statement of accounts dated 30. 6. 1984 was prepared and produced before the learned Single Judge on 18. 12. 1984. But according to plaintiff, the defendants, by producing the same played fraud on him, and he was made to agree for the compromise on the presumption that the said statement of accounts signed by defendants or their attorney was correct. Plaintiff was told that under the statement he could recover a sum of Rs. 1,43,254. 27 from various debtors who owed monies to the firm. Plaintiff says that defendants played fraud and made the plaintiff agree to have recourse to the said debtors towards the amount due to the plaintiff and that plaintiff agreed for the same and did not press his Section 20 application. On the basis of the above, the Court passed an order on 18. 12. 1984 wherein the learned Single Judge mentioned what the parties who were present in Court stated before her and she held that the suit was disposed of as per what the parties had stated before her.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the plaintiff-respondent moved the application to set aside the order dated 18. 12. 1984 on the ground of fraud and also on the ground that there was no compromise signed by the parties as required by Order 23, Rule 3 CPC. He also contended that the defendants had represented that they would help the plaintiff to recover the amounts from third parties by applying details in seven days and that they did not supply. Plaintiff had to move I. A. 338/85 to direct defendants to file the list of debtors. It was filed and plaintiff found that several debts owed to the firm we time barred, some were for 0. 01 paisa, 0. 10 paise, 0. 20 paise and 0. 60 paise, some were to be recover from Tamil Nadu and others living in far off places. Plaintiff stated that the defendants had not revealed to the Court on 18. 12. 1984 that the defendants i. e. Kamla Devi had withdrawn Rs. 1,42,501. 53 on 23. 9. 1980, Mr. Subhash Chand had drawn Rs. 1,72,965. 51 on 23. 9. 1980 and Miss. Manju Aggarwal had drawn Rs. 1,37,004. 25 on 30. 9. 1980.

( 6 ) THIS application for setting aside the order dated 18. 12. 1984 was contested by the appellants defendants.

( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 18. 12. 1984 on the ground that the compromise was not in writing nor was signed by all parties. He did not think it necessary, therefore, to go into allegations of fraud on the plaintiff or on the Court.

( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18. 10. 1995, this app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document