IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.807 of 2008 1. Md. Allauddin, son of Manger Mian 2. Manger Mian, son of late Gyani Mian, both residents of Village- Rupwara, P.O. Madhopur Chhata, P.S. Tariyani, District- Sitamarhi, at present Sheohar ---- Defendant Ist Set ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. Md. Israil, son of Nathuni Mian, resident of Village- Rupwara, P.O. Madhopur, P.S. Tariyani, District- Sheohar ---- Plaintiff ---- Opposite Parties Ist Set. 2. Sheikh Nayeem, son of late Sheikh Kurwan, resident of Village- Rupwara, P.O. Madhopur Chhata, P.S. Tariyani, District- Sitamarhi, at present Sheohar ---- Defendant 2nd Set--- Opposite Party 2nd Set. 3. Sri Girish Nandan Prasad Singh, son of Sri Yamuna Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Madhopur Chhatta, P.S. Tariyani, District-Sitamarhi, at present Sheohar ---- Defendant 3rd Set--- Opposite Party 3rd Set. ---------------------------------- 7. 3.11.2011 Heard Mr. Vindhyakeshari Kumar for the petitioners. The defendant first set of Title Suit No. 08 of 1993 has preferred this application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 1.4.2008, passed by the learned Munsif, Sheohar, at Sitamarhi, whereby he has rejected the compromise petition filed by him. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that defendant first set (the petitioners herein), had filed a compromise petition before 2 the learned trial court which was ignored. He challenged the same before the learned appellate court which directed the learned trial court to take up compromise petition in the first instance and, if necessary, proceed with the suit on merits thereafter. The compromise petition has been taken up by the learned trial court which has, inter alia, been rejected on the following ground: Þvihyh; U;k;ky; ls vfHkys[k izkIr gksus ds i”pkr~ iqu% dk;kZy; flfjLrsnkj }kjk izfrosnu dh ekax fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa vUrr% dk;kZy; flfjLrsnkj us ;gh izfrosfnr fd;k gS fd laf/k&i= iw.kZr% vO;ofLFkr ,oa =qfViw.kZ gSAÞ By order dated 25.11.2010, passed in the present proceedings, notices were directed to be issued to the opposite parties who have not entered appearance inspite of valid service of notices. It appears to us that the impugned order can not be faulted. However, it will be open to anyone of the parties to the suit including the defendant first set (the present petitioners) to file a fresh compromise petition which shall be considered in accordance with law. This civil revision application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)