Special leave granted.

This appeal has been filed for setting aside an order passed by the High Court on the revision application filed on behalf of the respondent. By the impugned order the learned Judge has held that the Trial Court could not have entertained the application filed on behalf of the appellant, for recall of the order recording a compromise alleged to have been entered between the appellant and the respondent.

The suit in question had been filed on behalf of the appellant on 14.9.1990. It appears that on 27.2.1991 a petition of compromise was filed, on behalf of the appellant, saying that both parties have entered into a compromise on the basis whereof the appellant had delivered the possession of the disputed land to the respondent. A prayer was made that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the suit be dismissed. It may be mentioned that the said petition had not been signed by the contesting respondent or by his counsel. It appears that one Shri Saran Ram, Advocate, had made a note - 'Thumb impression has been marked in my presence' - meaning thereby that thumb impression had been given by the appellant in his presence. On the same day the learned Subordinate Judge passed the following order:-

"Compromise deed Ex. C, tendered by plaintiff Banwari La.1. Statement of the counsel for the plaintiff is also recorded to that effect. The counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the suit of the plaintiff to be dismissed as withdrawn as per compromise deed Ex: C. The possession of the property has already been delivered to the defendant, and Defendant No.2 Smt. Chando Devi is in possession of the disputed land as owner as per compromise deed. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as per compromise deed Ex. C. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly."

On 3rd April, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant in the said suit that he had engaged Shri Saran Ram, Advocate, Kamal, to appear on his behalf, who had told the appellant that the date fixed for the hearing of the suit was 5.3.1991. When the appellant went to him on 5.3.1991 the counsel informed him that the case had been adjourned td 2.4.1991. On 2.4.1991 the appellant learnt from the cause list that the case was not on the cause list. Then he approached his counsel aforesaid Shri Soran Ram alongwith Shri J.D. Swamy, a retired lAS Officer.' His counsel informed him that the suit had been dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant got the records of the case inspected which revealed that Shri Saran Ram, Advocate of the appellant, in collusion with defendant No. 2 of the said suit had played a fraud on the appellant by filing a fabricated petition of compromise although no compromise had been effected between the appellant and the respondent. Further details of fraud were mentioned in the said petition and it was stated that as the alleged compromise itself was void, illegal and against the requirement of Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code "), the order recording such compromise be recalled and suit be restored and be heard on merit. About his counsel aforesaid Shri Saran Ram, it was said that the appellant had learnt that he had cheated several persons and because of that a case had been registered against him.

The learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing both the parties and referring to different fact and circumstances of the case including that the compromise petition filed on 27.2.1991 had not been signed by both the parties as required by Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code, recalled the order disposing of the suit in terms of the petition of compromise. He directed restoration of the suit to its original number. Against that order a revision application was filed before the High Court on behalf of the respondent. A learned Judge, as already stated above, set aside the aforesaid order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge saying that the pe