Going into the background of the petitioners' version, counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent no.2 herein (defendant no.3 in the suit) is widow of Lakhwant Singh, who was son of Surjit Kaur – petitioner no.1 and brother of Baljit Kaur and Lakhwinder Kaur – petitioners no.2 and 3 respectively. Regarding murder of Lakhwant Singh, his widow – defendant no.3 lodged FIR No.39 dated 12.03.1999, wherein petitioner no.1 Surjit Kaur, along with her son Baljit Singh, was facing trial. According to the counsel for the petitioners, compromise Annexure P-4 was effected in the suit with assurance that defendant no.3 shall resile in the aforesaid criminal case pending against petitioner no.1 and her son. Accordingly, defendant no.3 vide statement dated 29.08.2001 (Annexure P- 5), made in the said murder case as witness, turned hostile. Consequently, petitioner no.1 and her son were acquitted vide judgment dated 29.08.2001 (Annexure P-6). It was thus pointed out that immediately after the compromise and consequent compromise decree in question, defendant no.3 turned hostile in the criminal case and petitioner no.1 and her son were acquitted and thus, the impugned compromise was result of fraud and misrepresentation.
