Inherent power to set aside an unauthorised compromise decree upheld where the vakalatnama did not permit compromise.

A court may exercise its inherent power to set aside a compromise decree entered without proper authority, and that power is not defeated by the absence of a separate suit. Here, the compromise was found unauthorised because the mukhtar had no authority to bind the appellant and the pleader's vakalatnama did not expressly empower compromise. The order setting aside the compromise-based decree and directing rehearing was therefore sustained, and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the District Judge had power to set aside a compromise decree otherwise than by a regular suit; (ii) whether the compromise was validly entered into by the pleader and mukhtar of the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether the District Judge had power to set aside a compromise decree otherwise than by a regular suit.

Analysis: The compromise decree was challenged on the footing that the court below lacked jurisdiction to set it aside except in a separate suit. The Court accepted the view that every court has an inherent power to correct its own proceedings and to set aside a decree founded on a compromise found to have been presented without authority. The reference to sections 151 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code was treated as immaterial to the existence of that power.

Conclusion: The District Judge had power to set aside the compromise decree.

Issue (ii): Whether the compromise was validly entered into by the pleader and mukhtar of the appellant.

Analysis: The mukhtar had no authority to make or sign the compromise, and the pleader's vakalatnama did not confer power to compromise. The authority relied on did not establish a general power in a vakil acting under a written vakalatnama whose terms were insufficient to permit compromise. The compromise was therefore not shown to have been validly authorised.

Conclusion: The compromise was not validly authorised and the order directing rehearing was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the order setting aside the compromise-based decree and directing rehearing of the appeals was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may invoke its inherent power to set aside a compromise decree entered without proper authority, and a pleader can compromise only where the vakalatnama or authority expressly permits it.

---