RAMWATI Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Ramwati has filed this revision against the judgment dated 9-10-2002 passed by Sri Amitabh Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully.

(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties it is evident that there is force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the conclusion of the learned trial Court in his judgment dated 16-12-98. His conclusion about the compromise application which has been rejected by the trial Court is based on reasons and the procedures laid down under the Act but the contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties has no force because by merely saying that if only one Counsel has verified it will not make any difference is not acceptable. It does make difference, if the plaintiff herself moved an application that she had not moved an application and the learned trial Court has also arrived at a conclusion that the compromise application on the basis of which the judgment has been passed is not in accordance with the procedures laid down.