IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2161 of 2007 Dropadi Devi @ Dorpati Devi Versus Sabitri Devi & Anr ----------- 3 28-7-2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 14-9-2007 by which the learned court has rejected the compromise dated 11-5-2007. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in fact there was no compromise dated 11-5-2007 on record and in the impugned order it has been wrongly stated that the compromise dated 11-5-2007 is rejected. He has further submitted that in fact the compromise petition is dated 20-8-2099 which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the revision application and according to him the said compromise is still pending. However, his submission is that by mentioning the word ‘Sulahnama’ in the impugned order instead of ‘application’, a confusion has been created which may prejudice his case. The petitioner is given liberty to file a petition in the court below for appropriate correction in the order dated 14-9-2007. If such a petition is filed, the court below will dispose of the said petition in accordance with law. 2 With these observations this revision application is disposed of. roy ( V. Nath, J.)