RAM JANAM SINGH, j. - (1.) SMT . Ramwati has filed this revision against the judgment dated 9-10-2002 passed by Sri Amitabh Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. One restoration application was filed on 20-10-94 for setting aside the order dated 31-1-86 which was passed on the basis of the compromise in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The learned trial Court has given a very reasonable and well discussed finding that the compromise on the basis of which the suit was decreed looks to be not genuine one because the identification of the parties was done by the learned Counsel for the the defendants. The learned Counsel for the defendant has identified the signature of Smt. Ramwati revisionist. The compromise application which should have been verified in the manner which is prescribed has not been done. Normally the procedure is that the Counsel for the plaintiff identifies the signature or the thumb impression of the plaintiff and the signature or the thumb impression of the defendant is identified by the counsel for the defendant. In the instant case this has been done by the Counsel for the defendants for both the parties. The learned trial Court has concluded that the compromise looks to be fictitious and not genuine one and he set-aside the order dated 31-1-86 and restored the case to its original number. Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner Bareilly Division. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the revision by setting aside the restoration order of the learned trial Court dated 16-12-98. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully.
(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties it is evident that there is force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the conclusion of the learned trial Court in his judgment dated 16-12-98. His conclusion about the compromise application which has been rejected by the trial Court is based on reasons and the procedures laid down under the Act but the contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties has no force because by merely saying that if only one Counsel has verified it will not make any difference is not acceptable. It does make difference, if the plaintiff herself moved an application that she had not moved an application and the learned trial Court has also arrived at a conclusion that the compromise application on the basis of which the judgment has been passed is not in accordance with the procedures laid down.;