1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.576/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.858/2003. Shri R.N.Bhargava and Another. VERSUS Smt.Shakooran Bano. 05.02.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.M.M.Ranjan, for the petitioners. Mr.B.L.Mandhana, for the respondent. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. During the course of hearing of this appeal, it was brought to the notice of the court that the suit from which the present proceedings arise itself has been dismissed for non-prosecution on account of non instructions having been pleaded by the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant did not object to the same. The ordersheet dated 08.10.2003, drawn in this regard, may be reproduced for ready reference. “8.10.03 वकील वादी व ूितवादी उपिः थ त। वकील वादी ौी N.K.दोषी ने उपिः थ त होकर वादी की ओर से No Instructions िकया। वादी ः वयं उपिः थत नहीं है। सबह से कई बार आवाजे लगवायी गयी परन् तु वादी ः वयं या उसकी ओर से ना तो कोई उपिः थत आया ना ही अनुपिः थित का कोई कारण पेश हआ। अत ु : वाद वादी िवरूƨ ूितवादीगण अदम हाजरी अदम पैरवी के आधार पर खािरज िकया जाता है। पऽावली फैसल शुमार होकर दािखल दफ् तर हो।" 2 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.576/2001 It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the aforesaid order dated 08.10.2003 has not been challenged by the plaintiff nor have any steps been taken by the plaintiff for getting the order set aside or for the restoration of the suit and hence, it has become final. In that view of the matter, so far as the rights of the plaintiff are concerned, the plaintiff is now estopped from bringing a fresh suit for the same cause in respect of the same property in dispute. In that view of the matter, the contentions raised by the petitioner are only of academic interest as nothing would turn upon the decision that may be given as neither the plaintiff nor the defendant acted upon the compromise and the defendant-petitioner was not put to any disadvantageous position on account of the alleged compromise dated 19.08.2002 which has been set aside by the impugned order dated 10.09.2003. Nor has the plaintiff received any undue benefit or consideration on the basis of the alleged compromise. It may also be stated here that before the learned trial court, the stand of the defendant-petitioner in reply to the application submitted by the plaintiff was that the plaintiff has not disclosed her right to file the suit and she has no locus standi as she is not the owner of the property. It has also been admitted by the 3 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.576/2001 defendant-petitioner that the plaintiff appears to be uneducated and illiterate lady and she is not able to understand the technicalities and meaning between the various dimensions and the terms used in the plaint. In that view of the matter, since the defendant- petitioner himself has challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff as also the fact that he has himself alleged that the plaintiff is an illiterate and does not understand the various technical terms, I have no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial court holding that the compromise was not lawful and also more particularly when the suit now stands dismissed and for the last six years, no steps have been taken by the plaintiff either to get the same restored or filing a fresh suit in the matter. The defendant-petitioner in case he is aggrieved may take recourse to law for the protection of his rights in accordance with law. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances, this revision petition stands dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.