PRABHU SINGH Vs. PHULJHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference dated 10.4.1974, the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the revision petition of Prabhu Singh plaintiff/revisionist be allowed and the order of the learned trial court dated 10.9.1973, setting aside the ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff be set aside.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record. None appeared for the opposite-party number 1 and the learned DGC (R) was Learned on the point of partial compromise.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant argued that there was no fraud on the court, it was a consent decree and could not be set aside except by a civil court. On looking into the file, it appeared that there was a written statement by the State signed by the Collector and filed by the learned DGC (R) which said that it was a case of collusive transfer and illegal transaction. The learned counsel argued that the DGC (R) was also a party to the compromise, but I find this is not so. The counsel's argument that the State first contested and then did not contest neither is supported by any document, nor appears logical. The counsel further argued that the restoration application was filed beyond limitation.