GHANSHYAM DUTT Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order has to be seen in the background of the facts whether it is a fit case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

(2.) Earlier to the present litigation, there was a suit between the parties, who are parents and their sons. In that litigation, by a compromise decree dated 7th January, 1983, the total land measuring 223 Kanals 4 Marlas, stood distributed as follows :-

(3.) That compromise decree was challenged by Ghansham Dutt, one of the sons, by filing a suit on 3rd January, 1984. According to him, there was an ancestral property measuring 158 kanals 9 Marlas and 71 Kanals 19 Marlas of land was purchased by six sons jointly. The compromise was challenged on the grounds of fraud etc. and the broad plea was that he was made to understand while compromise was being arrived at that he is being given 37 Kanals 5 Marlas, whereas, he later on found that he was given 32 Kanals 2 Marlas. The suit was contested by his father, mother and other five brothers. Several opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to lead evidence to show that the compromise was fraudulent. When no evidence was led the last opportunity was granted on payment of Rs. 50/- as costs. On the adjourned hearing neither the costs were paid nor any evidence was produced. The defendants brought to the notice of the trial Court that even costs had not been paid and, therefore, the trial Court applied the provisions of Section 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure and closed plaintiff's case. Since there was no evidence on the file, the suit was dismissed the same day. The revision petition is directed against the aforesaid order.