CHANDAR BHAN Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge of Rohtak dismissing the appeal and affirming the decree of the trial Court which was passed after recording a compromise.

(2.) On 19-7-1948, Des Raj and others brought a suit for partition of the land in dispute situate in village kiloi in Pana Maidan. As there were numerous defendants in the suit they applied under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C., and got four persons, Dharama, Suba, Charidar Bhan and Molar, made representatives for the defendants. On 24-8-1948, an application for compromise was made in the Court of the trial Judge and on behalf of the defendants Dharama, Suba and Molar thumb marked the compromise. On the same. day statements of the parties were recorded and again on behalf of the defendants, Dharama, Suba and Molar put down their thumb marks. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge thereupon passed an order recording the compromise and passed a preliminary decree for partition in terms of the compromise. He also appointed a local commissioner for the purpose. Chander Bhan, the fourth representative of the defendants, was served on 24-7-1948. but he did not appear, and from the record it does not appear that he took any interest in the suit.

(3.) Chander Bhan on behalf of himself and on behalf of the other co-sharers of the Panna took an appeal to the Court of the District Judge on 19-11-1948. Along with the Memorandum of appeal an application which is dated 8-13-1948, was filed by Chandar Bhan asking to be allowed to file and pursue the appeal on his own behalf and on behalf of other persons under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs and was on one occasion dismissed in default. Evidently an application was filed for its restoration and on 26-7-1950, the learned Additional District Judge dismi&sed the appeal as being frivolous, on the ground that the object of the appeal was to delay the partition proceedings, and I take it that impliedly the leave to appeal was also dismissed. Chandar Bhan then came up in revision to this Cqurt and asked for leave to file a revision. Rule was issued by me on 30-11-1950. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional District Judge acted without jurisdiction in not giving a proper decision and in not considering the matter which was raised before him. The points for determination in this case really are many and before I come to the order of the Additional District Judge I must consider, whether the order passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge was in accordance with law or not.