JUDGMENT
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 9 together filed partition suit No. 22 of 1992 wherein petitioner No. 3 and opposite parties 1 to 8 were made defendants. Parties to the said suit were the descendants of Chaman Mahto. It was disposed of on 9.3.1999 in terms of compromise and the compromise petition was made part of decree.
2. Title Suit No. 39 of 1992 was filed by opposite parties 1 to 8 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and opposite parties 9 to 14 from going upon the suit land, detailed in Schedule B to the plaint and in-terferring with their possession. Plaintiffs claim in the said suit was that there was previous partition, wherein the lands in question were allotted to them and they were enjoying peaceful possession thereon.
3. Consequent upon compromise in the aforesaid partition suit a separate petition for compromise on the same terms was prepared and filed in the suit for injunction also.
4. After disposal of partition suit No. 22 of 1992. aforesaid on compromise, in fact. Title Suit No. 39 of 1992 had become infruc-tuous.
5. It appears that in support of compromise both sides examined two witnesses each and thereafter by order dated 11.3.1999. Title Suit No. 39 of 1992 was also disposed of in terms of compromise.
6. Subsequently, defendants 7 to 9 filed a petition purporting to be under proviso to
Order XXIII. Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that said compromise petition was forged and fabricated and as such prayer was made to recall the order recording compromise.
7. By impugned order dated 24.12.1999. trial Court rejected the said petition. Hence, defendants 7 to 9 have preferred the present Revision application.
8. It appears that petitioner No. 1 had filed a Review application in the said partition suit after the compromise decree was passed therein, which was rejected on 21.8.1999 and thereafter nothing has been produced before me that the compromise decree passed therein was challenged.
9. The compromise petition and order passed in Title Suit No. 39 of 1992 was based on the compromise arrived at between the parties and recorded in partition suit No. 22 of 1992.
10. In such circumstance, therefore. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed, but without costs.
11. Revision petition dismissed.