IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2933 of 1987 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.08.2011 Saudagar Singh ...Appellant Versus Raj Singh ..Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH J. (ORAL) This Regular Second Appeal is filed against the judgment dated June 12th, 1986 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby, first appeal was allowed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties and statements recorded by the first Appellate Court thereon and the judgment and decree dated 12th February, 1985 passed by the trial Court was set-aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly stated that in view of Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, second appeal before this Court, is not maintainable against a Compromise Decree passed by the first Appellate Court. He further states that the appellant may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to move an appropriate application before the first Appellate Court challenging the compromise, which is out-come of the fraud. He further states that since the second appeal was filed under the bona fide mistake, time consumed in the second appeal may be condoned in moving the recall application before the first Appellate Court in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. R.S.A. No. 2933 of 1987 -2- .. This Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application for recalling the judgment dated 12.6.1986 passed by the learned first Appellate Court on the basis of compromise, which is alleged to be out-come of fraud. In the event of moving an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing application to recall the judgment dated 12.6.1986, time consumed before this Court in the present appeal must be taken into consideration sympathetically in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the review/recall application by the appellant. (ALOK SINGH) 09.08.2011 JUDGE som