IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.256 of 2007 ---- Uday Pratap Singh son of Late Dilip Narayan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Patwa Tola, P.S.- Town Hajipur, District- Vaishali. Versus 1. Prem Prasad Singh son of Rajgir Singh 2. Most. Saraswati Devi wife of Late Babu Lal Singh 3. Sita Kuswaha 4. Sabita Singh 5. Vina Singh 6. Asha Devi 7. Usha Kuswaha 8. Sadhna Kuswaha 9. Sobha Kuswaha 10. Anjana Kuswaha Sl. 3 t0 10 all daughters of Late Babu Lal Kuswaha 11. Raj Rama Singh son of Late Babu Lal Singh, All residents of Village &P.O.- Chakwass, P.S.-Town, Hajipur, District- Vaishali. -- Decree Holders- Opposite Parties 1st Set. 12. Ram Pratap Singh son of Late Dilip Narayan Singh 13. Indira Devi 14. Mina Devi Both daughters of Late Dilip Narayan Singh 15. Jagat Narayan Singh son of Sri Rajendra Singh Sl.nos. 12 to 15 are residents of Mohalla- Patwa Toli, P.S. Town-Hajipur, District- Vaishali. -- Judgment debtor- Opposite parties 2nd Party. ----- For the petitioner : M/s Shyam Sunder Sinha ‘Shyam’ & Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 03. 10.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant-judgment debtor-petitioner challenging order dated 13.01.2009 by which learned Subordinate Judge IX, Vaishali rejected the petitioner’s prayer for accepting the compromise petition dated 21.04.1999 signed and filed on behalf of both the parties in Execution Case No.03 of 1992. - 2 - 3. The instant matter arises out of Title Suit No.77 of 1987 which was filed by the plaintiffs-decree holders-opposite parties 1st Set for declaration of their title and recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by the learned Subordinate Judge, whereafter the plaintiffs-decree holders filed Execution Case No.03 of 1992 for execution of the aforesaid decree passed in the title suit. 4. It transpires that a compromise petition dated 21.04.1999 (Annexure-1) was filed in which it was stated that money had been paid and auctioned land will remain in the possession of the original land holder and the decree holder or his successor will have no concern with the said land. Since the said compromise petition was not signed by all the parties, the learned Executing Court vide its order dated 09.10.2002 directed that it will be considered at the time of final hearing of the case and much thereafter the matter was taken up on 13.01.2007. 5. The claim of the judgment debtor-petitioner is that the decree holder had accepted the decretal amount from the judgment debtor, but lateron they denied it illegally. Thereafter the judgment debtor was ready to pay the said amount again. 6. On the other hand, the decree holder filed his rejoinder/objection to the claim of the judgment debtor and claimed that his signature had been obtained by fraud upon the compromise petition and they have not been paid any amount, hence the compromise petition is fit to be rejected as they are not ready for any - 3 - compromise and the judgment debtor cannot force his will upon the decree holders. 7. The learned court below considered the entire matter in detail and found that the claim of the decree holder was valid and genuine and thereafter came to the conclusion that no compromise can be recorded on the basis of the said compromise petition and, accordingly, rejected the said compromise petition dated 21.04.1999 by its impugned order dated 13.01.2007. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)