Chelameswar. J. — Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the final order dated 8th March, 2011 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.1075 of 2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order, the High Court dismissed the Revision filed by the appellants herein.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein instituted a Civil Suit No. RBT 124/22.05.2006 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division (S.D.) Jhajjar, against the two appellants herein and two others.

4. Respondents 4 to 7 herein are the legal representatives of one Kanta Bai, who died during the pendency of the suit and the said Kanta Bai was one of the other two defendants in the suit.

5. Unfortunately, copy of the plaint is not available on record but it appears that the suit was filed for the specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property and for the possession of the said property.

6. The defendants (appellants herein) contested the suit. They filed a written statement on 2.12.2006.

7. On 18.12.2007, an application (Annexure P-2) came to be filed purportedly on behalf of the three plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 3 herein), but signed only by respondents 1 and 3 alone. The relevant portion reads as follows :-

“Aforementioned titled case is fixed for 4.8.2010 for defendants evidence and in the afore-stated case the applicant plaintiff has compromised with the defendant in the suit I have neither any claim against the defendant nor I intend to continue the suit.

Therefore, it is prayed that file be summoned and the suit on behalf my self plaintiff no.3 be dismissed and file be consigned, I will be highly grateful.”

The application was accompanied by an affidavit of the third respondent herein, wherein he made a statement that he had compromised the suit with defendants and he did not wish to continue the suit, and, therefore the same be dismissed.

8. Annexure P-3, purportedly a vakalatnama in favour of one Shri A.K. Saini, advocate in the above mentioned civil suit, came to be executed on the same day, i.e. 18.12.2007 by the respondents 1 to 3. However, it must be mentioned herein that Annexure P-2, application was signed by an advocate by name Shri Arun Kumar along with two plaintiffs mentioned above.

9. The trial court did not pass any order either accepting or rejecting the application. (Annexure P-2)

10. On 4.8.2010, a joint statement (Annexure P-4) of first respondent and the above-mentioned advocate Shri Arun Kumar allegedly representing respondents 1 and 3 herein was recorded by the Trial Court. The relevant portion reads as follows:-

“....stated that we do not intend to continue with the suit and withdraw the suit on behalf of plaintiff no. 1 and 3.”

11. On 7.8.2010, the first respondent herein gave another affidavit (Annexure P-5) before the Trial Court. The relevant portion reads as follows:-

“1. That above noted suit has been neither filed by me nor above noted suit bears my signatures.

2. That pertaining to the agreement to sell we were not having sufficient funds within limitation and my compromise with Rattan Bai, Ram Phool took place in the year 1999.

3. That in the afore-stated case I have neither furnished any power of attorney as plaintiff nor any General Power of Attorney has been given by me.

4. That in the afore-stated suit I have falsely been impleaded as plaintiff and my signatures are also forged.

5. That in the aforesaid suit I have neither engaged any counsel nor purchased any stamp nor any witness has been produced by me on my behalf. The entire proceedings in this case carried out on my behalf are false and forged.”

12. In the background mentioned above, an application, Annexure P-7, came to be filed on behalf of the appellants herein. It does not contain any date. But in the opening paragraph of the said application it is stated as follows :-

“That the above noted civil bearing no. 124 of 2006 is pending in this Hon’ble Court and the same i