of the plaintiff. So any kind of mediation entered into between Vasudevan and the defendant cannot bind the plaintiff. When lawyers intervened and settle the matter, it can be understood that they will be advising the parties to file a compromise petition before this Court. Nothing is done before this Court not only that, the case has been prosecuted which has ultimately ended in decree. So the attempted projection of the defendant that the transaction was between him and Vasudevan is not established. The mediators only say that there was a settlement between the two. By any stretch of imagination when a suit is pending before the court, any compromise entered into without the junction of the plaintiff cannot bind him. PW1 has categorically stated that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/= from his wife's sister and had given it to the defendant, the defendant had admitted the execution of Ext.A1 but his contention itself is at the instance of Vasudevan. Whatever it may be, when the execution of the promissory note is admitted and proved, Section 118 of the N.I.Act comes into play to the effect that it is supported by consideration. It is
