- (1.) The present appeal has been filed under section 100 of CPC by the appellantsplaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred as the "appellate court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.4/2009, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Udaipurwati (hereinafter referred as the "trial court") in Civil Suit No.7 of 2000.
(2.) The present appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit before the trial court seeking declaration that the order dated 16.2.1985 submitted therein passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the so called compromise dated 15.2.1985 be declared as illegal and ineffective, so far as the rights of the plaintiffs are concerned. It was contended in the suit that the respondents-defendants had filed the suit in the court of Assistant Collector, Nawalgarh in respect of land bearing khasra no.2261 (new no. 2554/3202), which was owned by the plaintiff. The defendants had also filed an application being No. 22 of 1984 seeking temporary injunction. In the said case, the Asstt. Collector passed the order to attach the land in question and appointed receiver. Being aggrieved by the said order, the predecessor in title of the appellants-plaintiffs had filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. According to the appellantsplaintiffs, in the said proceedings before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Advocate Mr. Hemant Sogani appearing for the predecessors of the appellantsplaintiffs had filed a compromise without any authority and on the basis of said compromise, the Revenue Appellate Authority disposed of the said appeal vide the order dated 16.2.1985. According to the appellants-plaintiffs, the concerned Advocate was not authorized to make compromise in the matter, therefore the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authoriy was not binding on them. The trial court vide the judgment dated 22.11.2008 dismissed the said suit of the plaintiffs, against which, the appeal was preferred before the appellate court. The appellate court also dismissed the appeal, hence the present second appeal has been filed by the appellants.
(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Lokesh Sharma for the appellants that the concerned counsel for appellantsplaintiffs before the Revenue Appellate Authority was not authorized to make any compromise on behalf of appellants and therefore the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was not binding to them. He also submitted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the fact that the concerned advocate could not have filed the compromise without any signature or thumb impression of the concerned appellants in the said proceedings.;