Viney Mittal, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of RSA No. 2903 of 1986 and CR No. 3555 of 1986, as the aforesaid appeal as well as the revision petition have arisen out of a common order dated April 23, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby on an application filed by the defendants under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, the compromise dated August 16, 1979 arrived at between the parties has been ordered to be modified. Whereas, in the appeal the appellants have challenged the modified judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, in the revision petition the order allowing the application under Section 152 has been challenged.
(2.) The skeletal facts necessary for the decision of the controversy may be noticed as under:- Balkishan, the present appellant (petitioner in the revision petition) tiled a suit for declaration in the year 1969. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise appears to have been arrived at between the parties on August 16, 1979.A written compromise was presented to the Court. As per the aforesaid compromise, the plaintiff had agreed to hand over the possession of 61 kanals and 8 marlas of land. It was also indicated in the compromise that the actual possession of the aforesaid area had been so delivered to the defendants. On the basis of the compromise a decree was passed by the Appellate Court.
(3.) Later on, the defendants filed an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code claiming that although as per the compromise, an area of 61 kanals and 8 marlas of land was to be left to the defendants and even the actual possession thereof had been so delivered, but by inadvertence one khasra No. 76/24 had been omitted from the compromise and as such had not even been include in the decree. Consequently, they sought the rectification of the compromise and the modification of the decree and prayed that the aforesaid said khasra No. 76/24 be so mentioned. It was claimed by the defendants that the actual possession of even the aforesaid khasra No. 76/24 was with the applicant defendants. The aforesaid application filed by the defendants was rejected by the Appellate Court vide an order dated April 23, 1981 as not maintainable.;