JUDGMENT

1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises there were five plaintiffs and two defendants. At a time when all the five plaintiffs were represented by a single Vakil, a compromise was arranged disposing of the suit on certain terms. This compromise was presented to the Court and verified before it by three plaintiffs in person, by both the defendants in person and by the Pleader, who held a power-of attorney on behalf of all the five plaintiffs jointly. At a later date, the two plaintiffs who had not personally signed or presented to the Court the petition of compromise, protested that they had not authorised the Pleader to enter into the same and were not bound by the terms of the compromise, or by the action of their Pleader in presenting the same to the Court. The Court of first instants, overruled this contention and passed a decree in terms of the compromise. The lower Appellate Court has set aside this decision and remanded the suit to the Court of first instance for trial on the merits. The appeal before UB is against this order of remand. In accordance with the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Jang Bahadur Singh v. Shankar Rai 13