JUDGMENT:- This is an application under Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording the compromise and deciding the second appeal as well as the cross-objection in terms of the conditions of the compromise. This application has been signed by Shobha Ram, the appellant, as well as his counsel. It has also been signed by one Safaruddin, special attorney of Inamul Haq, and by the counsel for the respondent. The application was sent to the court below for verification. There an objection was filed that Safaruddin had no authority to compromise the matter on behalf of Inamul Haq. It appears that an application for amendment of the compromise petition was also filed. Consequently the Additional Civil Judge sent back the whole record to this Court. The said application for amendment was dismissed by this Court on 6th April 1973. On that date Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the respondent, stated that the alleged compromise is not lawful. He prayed for and was allowed one month's time to file objections and affidavit. On 7th May, 1973, a counter-affidavit of Shidulnmsa, the wife of the respondent, was filed. The appellant has filed a rejoinder affidavit. Thereafter supplementary counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit were also filed.

2. The respondent is residing in Brunei, beyond Singapur, to earn his livelihood. He is the owner of the shop in dispute. The defendant appellant was the tenant in that shop. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was filed by the respondent for the ejectment of the appellant from that shop. That suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal the decree for ejectment of the defendant from the shop in suit was maintained. The decree with regard to other matters was partly modified. Against that decision the defendant preferred this second appeal and the plaintiff filed a cross objection. During the pendency of the appeal and the cross objection the aforesaid compromise petition was filed on 29th August, 1972.

3. It is not disputed that the respondent had executed a power of attorney in favour of his son-in-law, Safaruddin. In para 7 of the counter affidavit ii is stated that Safaruddin by a letter threatened the respondent that he would join the appellant if he was nor paid immediately by the respondent. However, the respondent did not pay any heed to the illegal demand of Safaruddin. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the said Safaruddin in collusion with the appellant and against the interest of the respondent and without his consent filed a compromise application in the second appeal through another counsel appointed by Safaruddin. In para 9 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that neither the respondent nor his wife knew about the aforesaid compromise when it was filed in the Court. Again in para 11 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the compromise filed by Safaruddin is against the interest of responded and has been filed by him in collusion with the appellant and that Safaruddin did not consult the respondent or his wife for filing the compromise. Paragraph 7 of the rejoinder-affidavit is in reply to paragraph No. 8 of the counter-affidavit. In this paragraph of the rejoinder-affidavit the allegation regarding collusion is not repudiated. Similarly in para 10 of the rejoinder-affidavit, which 's in reply to paragraph No. 11 of the counter-affidavit, the allegation regarding collusion is not repudiated. What the appellant alleges is that the compromise in question is a lawful compromise and if the respondent is aggrieved by it his remedy is only by way of a separate suit.

4. Inamul Haq has also filed his affidavit in the case annexing thereto the original letter dated 1st July, 1972, received by him in Bruinei whereby Safaruddin had demanded money from him. In that letter a reference was made to his pitiable financial condition. He had stated that in case the money was not sent to him he should not be blamed for his treachery. He al