- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The parties hereto had filed a deed of settlement before the Court of First Subordinate Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, in Title Suit No. 420/2005. Respondent No.1 was shown to be a party to the said compromise deed. He, however, filed an application on or about 25.8.2006 alleging that his signature was forged on the compromise deed and only on that basis, by an order dated 24.7.2009 the learned Subordinate Judge directed as under: "Heard on objection petition filed on behalf of the defendant against compromise dated 8.5.06 which was filed in the court on 25.8.06. After objection and other defendants impleaded subsequently also filed objection against the compromise and a case law has been filed on behalf of defendant. AIR 1997 Punjab and Haryana Page-155, Court to not impose compromise on unwilling party and Order 23 Rule 3 where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of whole or in part of the subject matter of the suit the court shall order such agreement compromise or satisfaction to be recorded and pass decree provided and where alleged by one party and denied by other that adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at the court shall decide the question but no adjournment shall be done for the purpose of the deciding question and as per explanation and agreement of compromise which is void and voidable under the Indian Contract Act shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule. Objection filed by the defendant prior to filing of compromise on the ground that compromise has been got filed with conspiracy and is forged and plaintiff has obtained signature on pretence of giving land on lease to others due to why they have signed on the plain and stamp paper not binding on him. As parties are not willing to the compromise, and keep pending the case for decide whether fraud and forgery has been committed or not in compromise which is filed subsequently appears to be not desirable. In the circumstances, the compromise petition can not be accepted. In the light of this order all objection filed on behalf of defendants are disposed of. To. 7.8.08 for filing documents and framing issues."
(3.) A civil revision application filed thereagainst has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, saying: "Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.";