GIRDHARI LAL - (1.) THIS refer ­ence has been sent by the Additional Com ­missioner, Bareilly by his order dated 25 -1 -93 in which Additional Commissioner has recommended for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court dated 24 -1 -92.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that in case No. 9/84 Mohan Lalv. Chhadami Lal and others, under Section 229 -B/202 of UPZA and LR Act order was passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of com ­promise on 2 -9 -86. A restoration applica ­tion was filed by Satyapal on 18 -8 -89 for setting aside the order dated 2 - 9 -86. On 24 -1 -92 learned trial Court has accepted the restoration application. Against this order revision was filed by Chhadami Lal etc. On 25 -1 -93 learned Additional Com ­missioner has recommended for setting aside the order of the trial Court on the basis that the order of the trial Court dated 2 -9 -86 was based on a compromise. Hence no restoration application lies against the order passed on the basis of compromise. Objection has been filed by the opposite -parties. It has been submitted by the op ­posite parties that order passed by learned trial Court was an interlocutory order. Hence no restoration lies against the order dated 24 -1 -92. I have seen the records. It is clear from the file that the order of the learned trial Court dated 2 -9 -86 was passed on the basis of compromise. Hence against this order no restoration application lies. Therefore, the reference submitted by the learned Additional Commissioner, revision is allowed and the order dated 24 -1 -92 passed by the trial Court is set aside. Revision allowed.;