HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHj^lBJL^SPyR CIViL REVJSiON HO. 108 OF 2009 APPLICANT JvdamentDebtor No.2 NON-APPLSCANTS Decree Hoider JudamentDebtor No.1 Achche Lal Agarwai, son of Shri Ghanshyam Das Agarwai, aged 52 years, resident of Magarpara, Biiaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Smt. Tilmat Bai, wife .of Shri Maan Singh, aged 45 ysars, resident of VJilage Birgahani, Post Chapora, Tahsii Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Johan Lal Kanwat son of Shn Pitambar Lal Kanwat, resident of Village Banahil, P.S. Pamgarh, Tahsii Pamgarh, Dlstrict Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) CivH Revision UnderSection IISoftheCode ofCJviS. Procedure.1808 fSinaSe Bench: Hon'bSe Mr. N.K. Aaarwat. J.) Present :Shri Maiay Shrivastava, counsei for the appiicant. Shri Anurag DayaJ Shrivastava, counsei for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2, though served. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23rd day of March,2010) The instant revisioin is directed against the order dated 03-12- 2009 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur In Execution Case No.56/2005. 2. Facts briefly stated are as under: The applicanVJudgment Debtor No.1 herein had filed an appjication under Sectjon 47 read with Order 21 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. for djsmjssaj of the execution case In view of out of comDromJse took place between the parties. 3. The decree holder by filing reply has stated that the said compromise deed is obtained by fraud. Learned Tribunai without enterii^ Jnto merits of the matter and without deciding the same, in Serms of Order 21 Rule 2 of C.P.C. has dismisseci the application merely on the ground that original compromise deed has not been fiied. Kvr 4. Learned counsel for the appiicant would submit that the iearned Execution Court has erred in dismissing the application wrthout considering it on its own merits. 5. On the other hand iearned counsei for the respondents wouid submit that if the applicant files original compromise deed, then matEer may be remanded back to the trial Court for its consideration afresh in accordance with iaw. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant is ready to fite compromise deed before the Trial Court. 7. ! have heard learned counsel for the partjes, and perused the order impugned. 8. A bare perusai of the order would reveal that the iearned Execution Court has not considered the merits of the application and dismissed the application merely on the basis of the fact that the originaS compromise deed has not been fded. in view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Court below being patently iltegal is liable to be and is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to consicfer the application fded by the applicant afresh in accordance with law on its own merits after giving him opportunity to fiJe the original compromise deed. 9. Revision is allowed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge