- (1.) LAKHPAT and others have filed this revision against the order dated 23-8-99 passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut.
(2.) REVISION No. 13 of 1999-2 (X)0/meerut has also been filed by the same parties, against the same order passed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut. Both the revisions are inter con nected hence the disposal is being done by the same order. The order passed in REVISION No. 12 of 1999-2000 Mccrutwill cover REVISION No. 13 of 1999-2000. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and gone through the judgment of the Court below carefully. The learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the preliminary decree which was prepared was based on compromise and the opposite-party did not file any objection against that prelimi nary decree. The contention of the op posite-party is that he did not enter into any compromise with the revisionist and that for the first time the opposite-party appeared before the Court when they filed objection to set aside the final decree which was passed on the basis of the said compromise. The learned Additional Commissioner after due consideration of evidence and fact and circumstances has come to the conclusion that when the op posite-party is denying that he en (creel into any compromise with the revisionist it is in the interest of justice that the mailer could be looked into by the learned trial Court after allowing the parties an opportunity to adduce their evidence and decide the ease as per the provisions of law.
(3.) I find no material or legal irregularity in the judgment of the learned Additional Commission which needs no interference at this level. With this obser vation, the revision is not fit to be admiited and is dismissed accordingly. This order will also govern connected revision No. 13 of 1999- 2000/meerut. Revision dismissed .;