IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application No. 428 of 2009 IN Writ Petition (M/S) No. 683 of 2001. Satish Kumar S/O Bagwan Das R/O village Ghari Negi, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Applicant-Petitioner. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. … O.P.-Respondents. Sri M.C.Bansal Advocate, learned Brief Holder for the review-applicant. Sri Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/1 to 4/5. Date October 12, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Objection CLMA No. 6984 of 2009) Heard Sri M.C.Bansal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner-review applicant and Sri Arvind Vashist, Advocate, for the O.P.-respondent no. 4/1 to 4/5 and perused the record. This review application (No. MCC No. 428 of 2009) has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that this Court has committed a manifest error of law in holding that the proceeding of Suit No. 22/25 of 1979-80 Satish Kumar Vs. Pyare Lal, under Sections 229B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which was decided on 19-5- 1988, is barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. Learned counsel for the review applicant has contended that no such plea was raised before the trial court and no issue was framed. 2 I have perused the judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation (for short SOC). The Consolidation Officer in his judgment has also held that the proceedings are also barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence. The learned S.O.C. has also held that the proceedings of the suit are also barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence since the final decree dated 19-5-1988 was not assailed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant next contended that the principle of estoppel and acquiescence is by the judgment and not by the conduct of the parties. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-respondent nos. 4/1 to 4/5 Sri Arvind Vashit has urged that a compromise in the Suit No. 22/25 of 1979-80 was arrived at in the presence of Bhagwan Das and after preliminary order and decree, Sri Bhagwan Das, the sole plaintiff had died and on the application of the petitioner, he was substituted as plaintiff. According to the Opposite Party- respondent no. 4/1 to 4/5, the petitioner or his predecessor has not filed any appeal against preliminary decree passed in the suit. The compromise decree is binding upon the parties, therefore, the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act would be barred by Rule 3-A of Order XXIII of the C.P.C. The compromise decree being lawful shall have binding effect on the parties, therefore, the principle of estoppel and acquiescence would also operate by the conduct of parties. 3 It is apparent on record that petitioner Satish Kumar was substituted in the suit also on 9-12-1987 and decree of the trial court dated 19-5-1988 was not assailed before the appellate court. The S.O.C. in his order dated 27-12-1996 has observed that the compromise dated 19- 5-1981 between the parties has been admitted by the petitioner Satish Kumar. The decree has become final. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable that the trial court did not give any finding that the proceedings are also barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence. I have perused the objection filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer. No such objection was raised by the petitioner that the petitioner was a minor at the time of alleged compromise dated 19- 5-1981 (copy Annexure No.-3 to the writ petition) between Bhagwan Das and Pyare Lal and others. The averment was made in the writ petition for the first time that the petitioner Satish Kumar was a minor at the time of alleged compromise and he was not properly represented in the suit. The contention of the learned counsel for the review applicant is not tenable. Accordingly, I find that there is no good ground to allow the review application. Consequently, the review application (No. 428 of 2009) is dismissed. Objection of the O.P.-respondent no. 4/1 to 4/5 stands disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4