JUDGMENT

M. M. DAS, J. — This writ appeal has been filed under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent against an order dated 1.7.2005 of the learned Single Judge passed in O.J.C. No.17341 of 2001.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed Title Suit No.164 of 1979 against the appellant to set aside a sale deed, which was executed and registered by one Ganjendra Acharya in favour of the appellant with respect to the ‘A’ Schedule property of the plaint for a consideration of Rs.2000/-. The grounds taken in the plaint were that the sale deed was obtained by playing fraud and coercing the vendor. The appellant’s case was that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 realizing that the suit would be dismissed got a compromise petition filed in the suit, which according to the appellant was obtained by the respondent No.1 by playing fraud on the appellant. However, on the Court causing an enquiry under Order 23, Rule 3 of the C.P.C., held that the compromise was lawful and the same was made a part of the decree. The said decree was challenged by the appellant in Title Appeal No.21 of 1982, which was being dis¬missed, Second Appeal No.109 of 1984 was preferred by the appel¬lant before