MITHAI AND ANOTHER Vs. IV ADJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Verma learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal heir of Smt. Jagdei (respondent no. 4). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioner for cancellation of sale deed Smt. Jagdei was a contesting defendant and the suit was compromised. An application under Sec. 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by her against the compromise decree was rejected by the Trial Court Smt. Jagdei feeling aggrieved filed Civil Revision no. 206 of 1985, Smt. Jagdei Vs. Smt. Mithai and 6 Others in the court of IV Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur which revision has been allowed and the matter has been remitted back to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned order is illegal for the reason that the Trial Court after appraisal of evidence on record had considered the application under Sec. 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by Smt. Jagdei and had recorded a clear finding that the suit had been compromised between the plaintiffs and Smt. Jagdei. According to him such finding of fact could not have been interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction by the revisional court.

(3.) Sri Tarun Verma learned counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted that no compromise was entered into by Smt. Jagdei and therefore her application to recall the compromise decree was wrongly rejected by the Trial Court and the revisional court has allowed the revision on the ground that Smt. Jagdei had never affixed thumb impression which was identified by a new counsel.