GIRDHARI LAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 7-4-2000 by which name of the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 have been deleted. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 7-4-2000 this revision has been filed by Pradeep Singh son of Chain Singh.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for both the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for the revisionist that in this case respondents 5 to 8 are the trans­ferees and their claim is based on the sale deed which was executed on 12-1-99 prior to the filing of the suit. It has also been contended that only two transferees has been made parties and rest has been deleted. He has cited 1983 ALJ page 913, AIR 1958 page 394 and RD 1998 page 338.
(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite- parties that ap­peal was not maintainable before the Commissioner because no appeal lies against a compromise decree. A suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act was filed by Ram Lubhaya etc. against Prithiviraj and others son of Jagpal Singh and Gurnam Singh has filed an implead­ment application dated 25-10-99 before the SDO Pooranpur vide his order dated 19-11-99 has decreed the suit of the plain­tiff and impleadment application dated 25-10-99 was dismissed. Being aggrieved by this order Jaspal Singh and Gurnam Singh have filed appeal before the Com­missioner in which opposite-parties Nos. 5 to 9 Pradeep Singh, Jasvinder Singh, Gur-daspal Singh, Gurdip Singh and Surjit Singh respondents 5 to 9 were also made parties. Satish Singh has submitted an ap­plication before the Additional Commis­sioner in which he has prayed that respondents 5 to 9 were not parties before the trial Court and on this basis appeal be dismissed. On this application Additional Commissioner has ordered on 4-7-99 that the name of the respondents 5 to 9 will be deleted.;