V. R. NEWASKAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition by appellant No. 1 Binodilal s/o Bishambhardayal for setting aside a consent decree. For securing this he invokes powers of this Court under section 151, C. P. C.

( 2 ) FACTS leading upto the present petition are as follows : petitioner Binodilal, along with his two brothers Kirodimal and mahabirdayal and his two minor nephews Virendrakumar and Satyendrakumar sons of Raghuvirchand, was plaintiff in a suit filed against the heirs and legal representatives of one Virendrasingh Deshmukh viz. Satyendra singh and others for the recovery of Rs. 27,360/ -.

( 3 ) THIS suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs including petitioner binodilal preferred appeal against this decision. During the pendency of this appeal a compromise petition dated 1-2-1956 was filed. This was signed by Sahodra Devi w/o Raghuvirchand as representing the interest of her minor sons Virendrakumar and Satyendrakumar as also by Mahabirdayal for himself and as representing binodilal and Kirodimal, Mahabirdayal purported to represent Binodilal and kirodimal under a registered power of attorney executed by them in his favour. As the interest of minor appellants was involved permission of the Court was sought on the ground that the compromise was for the benefit of the minors.

( 4 ) THE High Court of Madhya Bharat before whom this appeal was pending after duly considering the interest of the minors granted permission to compromise by its order dated 2-2-1956. Under the terms of the compromise agreement the claim in appeal was to be fully satisfied on payment of Rs. 10,000/- by means of the bank of Indore's Draft dated 31-1-1056 for that amount in the name of Malwa cotton Press Ujjain and plaintiffs' suit and appeal were to be dismissed. The plaintiffs were the Proprietors of the last mentioned concern. The draft was accordingly given and the claim was fully satisfied.

( 5 ) MR. Chitale who represented all the appellants thereupon expressed before the court then that the plaintiffs no longer wished to press their claim in Civil Suit No. 26 of 1949 and in appeal No. 33 of 1953 and prayed for dismissal of the same. The High Court acting upon it and upon the compromise petition directed the dismissal of the suit and the appeal in question and a decree was framed accordingly.

( 6 ) ON 2-5-1956 Binodilal filed the present petition. In this petition he alleged that the appellants (including the petitioner) and the respondents in collusion with each other made an application before the Court under Order 23, Rule 3, C. P. C. by concealing the fact, that the power of attorney conferred by the petitioner upon mohabirdayal had been cancelled by the petitioner, both from the Court and from the counsel appearing for the appellants.

( 7 ) IT appears clear from the allegations made in the petition that the petitioner attributed fraud to the defendants and to all his co-appellants. According to him by the fraud committed by all the respondents in collusion with all the appellants except himself both his counsel Mr. Chitale and the Court were deceived. This is a case where, according to the petitioner's allegations, there is fraud committed against the petitioner who is one of the appellants by the rest of the parties as also upon the Court.

( 8 ) MR. Deshpande for the petitioner stated before us that the petitioner, along with the rest of the appellants formed a joint Hindu family who carried on business as a joint Hindu family firm, which owned the concern Malwa Cotton Press Ujjain in whose name the draft for Rs. 10,000/-was given by the respondents.

( 9 ) IT is significant that the petitioner does not state that the draft was not credited to their joint account nor did he offer along with the petition Rs. 10,000/- with a view to place the respondents in the same position in which they were on the date of dismissal of the suit and the appeal on 2-2-1956. The petitioning appellant, along with others having pocketed Rs. 10,000/-,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document