- (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant has opposed the claim which was filed by the respondent. The matter reached up to the Board of Revenue. Before the Board of Revenue, specific contention was raised regarding re judicata as under:-
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Badri Prasad & Ors. Vs. Ramavtar (Civil Appeal No.181 of 1957/65 decided on 02.12.65 which reads as under:- "This is an appeal by the plaintiff appelalnts against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Alwar dated 18th April, 1957. During the pendency of the appeal, the appelant presented a compromise petition on 25.08.59.The compromise petition bears signatures of Badri Prasad plaintiff, plaintiffs' counsel Sbhri Nityanand and respondent Ramkumar. It may be mentioned here that there were three respondent our of whom respondent Sujaram died during the pendency of the appeal and his name was struck off. The other respondent was Mst. Chanda who was a proforma respondent. The main contesting respondent was Ramkumar. The notice was issued to Ramkumar to get the compromise verified. He moved an application that since the appellants promis to pay Rs. 500/- but as they failed to do so, the compromise be rejected. The parties were thereafter asked to lead evidence to prove the compromise. No evidence was led by respondent Ramkumar. On the other hand, the appellant Badri Prasad appeared in the witness-box and swore that Ramkumar made his signature on the compromise in his presence after fully and remaining its contents. One more witness was examined on behalf of the appellants namely chhajuram. It is an attesting witness to the compromise. He has stated that Ramkumar signed the compromise in his presence. He denied that Badri Prasad Promised to pay Rs.500/- to respondent Ramkumar. There is no term in the compromise that the appellants shall pay Rs.500/- to respondent Ramkumar. It therefore/stands proved that the compromise was executed by the contesting parties. I have gone through the compromise and find it lawful. I therefore order that the compromise be recorded. In the result. I allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower court and decree the suit in accordance with the terms of the compromise";