- (1.) N. S. Ravi, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division dated 28-11-1980 and 29-12-1995 in Appeal Nos. 45/43, 1979.
(2.) BY the order dated 28-11-1980 the learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal on the basis of the alleged compromise dated 28-11-1980 between the parties and by order dated 29-12-1995 the learned Additional Commissioner rejected the review petition of Bhaiya Lal on the ground that the original order was passed on the basis of compromise between the parties which was duly attested by their respective advocates before the Court. The instant revision has been filed against these orders on the ground that the learned Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to accept the so called compromise which was not submitted before the trial Court and secondly that Bhaiya Lal never put his signatures on the so called compromise and the same is a forged document and thirdly that the revisionist has 1/2 share in the property in dispute whereas the respondents Pheran and Ramna who are real brothers and sons of Mannua have 1/4 each share in the property in dispute. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and examined the record of the case. It appears from the record that a partition suit under Section 176 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was filed before the S. D. O. concerned which on the plea of res-judicata was argued to have been barred on behalf of Bhaiya Lal. The learned trial Court by order dated 11-6-79 held that suit decreed on the basis of compromise is not barred by the principles of res-judicata. Against this interim order a revision was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Jhansi in which the learned Additional Commissioner instead of deciding the issue of res-judicata accepted a fresh compromise alleged to have been attested by respective advocates in his presence and decreed the suit by the impugned order dated 28-11-1980 and thereafter the review application was also rejected by the impugned order dated 29-12-1995.
(3.) THERE was no occasion before the learned Additional Commissioner to accept a fresh compromise and decree the suit especially when out of three contesting persons respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were sons of one single father and revisionist was son of father. Moreover, if any document was submitted before the revisional Court the same should have been remanded back to the trial Court for adjudication. The learned revisional Court has under-taken the burden of trial Court inasmuch as it has itself accepted so called compromise. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances genuine suspicion has arisen regarding the shares of the contesting litigants and the authenticity of the alleged document. Therefore, impugned orders passed learned Additional Commissioner are set aside. The revisionist may simultaneously file a suit, he so desires instead of a partition suit and if he files such a declaratory suit the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible by the concerned Court. The revision is disposed of accordingly. Revision disposed of. .;