1. This application under Section 151 CPC seeks recalling the "collusive" decree of 2-9-99 passed in CS(OS) 2121/1987. Before coming to the averments in the application, it is necessary to have a look at the proceedings in this case.

2. The applicant filed the S.No. 2121/87 against Saroj Bala with the following story. An agreement to sell was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 15/275, Vishwa Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur (hereinafter refereed to as the "suit property") on 30-9-82 for a consideration of Rs. 4.75 lacs after actual payment of earnest money of Rs.25,000/-. But the defendant failed to obtain the pre-requisite permissions /sanctions from various authorities and failed to perform the agreement. Two supplementary agreements dated 22-9-83 and 30-3-84 were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff whereby the time for execution was extended upto 30-9-87 with direction to the defendant to obtain necessary permission's and sanctions from the local authorities at Kanpur and clearance from the Income Tax Department at Delhi /Kanpur. This Court issued summons to the defendant and also passed an order of injunction dated 5-10-87 restraining the defendant from transferring her right, title and interest in the suit property. On 26-10-87, the defendant put in appearance through Mr. V.K. Mishra and subsequently filed his written statement and reply to the application for injunction. The dates for trial were given as 9th and 10th October, 97 and, thereafter, 6th and 8th February, 2000.

3. On 29-7-99, before the date fixed for trial, IA 7091/99 was filed by Geeta Devi and Sarla Devi for substitution as plaintiffs in place of Tara Chand Jain who had assigned his interest in the suit property in their favour by virtue of an agreement dated 28-7-99. On that day, the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Alakh Kumar, Advocate and the applicants by Mr. Kirti Uppal, Advocate. Upto the earlier date, the plaintiff was being represented by one Mr. J.K. Jain. On certain dates the plaintiff was himself present in Court. The application was allowed on 29-7-99 and thus applicants were substituted in place of the plaintiff. Thereafter, an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC was filed by Geeta Devi and Sarla Devi which was listed for disposal on 2-9-99. This application was allowed and the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise.

4. The present application was filed in November, 2003 and was listed on 14-11-03. The applicant challenges the compromise decree on the following grounds:"

(i) The 'applicant/plaintiff could not have legally transferred or assigned or alienated the suit property in favour of any one because he had not become owner thereof.

(ii) One Krishan Kumar Gupta purported attorney of Geeta Devi and Sarla Devi obtained consent of the applicant on agreement/assignment deed dated 28-7-99 in favour of Geeta Devi and Sarla Devi assuming that the plaintiff has such a right of assignment. The Assignment Deed was written on a two rupee non-judicial stamp paper.

(iii) A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid through cheque dated 8-6-98 and a sum of Rs, 50,000/- was paid by draft dated 11-9-98 and a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by way of a draft dated 1-2-99.

(iv) No devolution took place because Saroj Gupta was not a signatory to the said document and because the plaintiff did not have any right of assignment.

(v) The application under Order XXII Rule 10 for substitution of Geeta Devi and Sarla Devi was bad.

(vi) The plaintiff was misled by Krishan Kumar Gupta and the Advocate appointed for the plaintiff in place of Shri J.K. Jain, Advocate, Mr. Alakh Kumar could hot have represented the plaintiff because he had not obtained no objection from the plaintiffs earlier advocate Shri J.K.Jain.

(vii) The application under Order XXIII Rule 3 was bad because in this application the applicant was never impleaded.

(viii) The defendant/respondent Saroj Gupta could have transferred the title in favour of Geeta Devi and