IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5301 of 2005 GODHAN CHAUBEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04 07.07.2008 The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Director Consolidation in terms of Section 35 on basis of a compromise filed therein. Petitioner asserts that his father in the proceeding before Director entered into a compromise. That compromise is fraudulent as his father was misled into signing a document which was later made into a compromise petition. The fact of this compromise petition which was filed under the signature of the petitioner’s father is that the petitioner was using out substantial lands as share of his father was being reduced. I am afraid, in this writ petition this question cannot be gone into for two reasons. Firstly, petitioner’s father has made no such grievance. Signature of petitioner’s father on the alleged compromise is not denied. The correctness of the compromise petition is being challenged not by a party to the compromise, but by a person not a party to the compromise. The parties to the compromise had 2 been challenged this if petitioner has any grievance that the compromise is a forged, fabricated or a fraudulent document as such a voidable transaction. It is open for him to file a suit for cancellation of the said compromise but surely in the facts noticed above. This Court is not the Court for petitioner’s remedy and this Court cannot entertain such a petition. The writ petition is, thus, misconceived and is dismissed as such. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)