Khatim Reza, J. – Heard Mr. Lakmesh Marvind, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in Miscellaneous Case No. 01/2007/15/2017 (for brevity 'learned court below') whereby the learned court below rejected the petition dated 06.11.2007 filed by the petitioners under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity ‘CPC’) for setting aside the decree passed on the basis of compromise in Title Appeal No. 37/1999/30/2003 by the 5th Additional District Judge, Aurangabad whereby a compromise was entered into and a decree was drawn after accepting the compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC.

3. The brief factual background of the case is that the plaintiff/opposite party No.2, namely, Rekha Mahto (husband of opposite party no.1) filed Title Partition Suit No. 22/1993/100/ 1994 for carving out of 1/5 share in the suit property given in schedule-A of the plaint by appointment of Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner. The said partition suit was decreed on 23-06-1999, as it was held that the plaintiff-opposite party No.2, in the present case, has got valid cause of action to the suit and he is entitled for decree of partition.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, Smt. Manmati Devi wife of Rekha Mahto (plaintiff-opposite party No.2) preferred Partition Appeal No. 37/1999/30/2003. After summon, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their 'vakalatnama'. The further case of the petitioners’ is that Jagdish Mahto (petitioner No.1) was the ‘pairvikar’ of the case. Unfortunately, due to criminal case lodged against him, he could not do ‘pairvi’ in the aforesaid case and taking advantage of the absence of the petitioners, the opposite parties prepared a forged compromise petition by making forged signature of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and filed before the learned lower appellate court. It is contended that Rekha Mahto and Manmati Devi also filed separate 'vakalatnama’, over which, a forged signature of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was made and was filed in the lower appellate Court. Though the sons of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who are petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 were party to the Partition Suit up to the appeal, but their signatures were not taken on the compromise petition. It is submitted that first compromise petition dated 06.03.2003 was filed by Rekha Mahto and Manmati Devi with forged signature of Jagdish Mahto and Girija Mahto, which was not pressed and again filed a compromise petition dated 19.06.2003 making the forged signature of Jagdish Mahto and Girija Mahto. Signature of other petitioners were also not taken on the compromise petition though they had become major. These petitioners Nos. 3 to 9 were shown minors and on their behalf Mr. Ramashishi Sharma, Advocate signed as guardian ad litem (GAL). In the light of compromise petition, the Title Appeal No. 37/1999/30/2003 was decreed on the basis of alleged compromise petition dated 19.06.2003. It is submitted that on perusal of compromise petition dated 19.06.2003, it transpires from 1st page to its last page that the date given is 19.06.2003 with the seal of the court, but the signature of guardian ad litem (Ramashish Sharma, Advocate) on behalf of petitioner Nos. 3 to 9 is made on 23.07.2004. The said signature of the guardian ad litem on the date of order on compromise petition dated 23.07.2004 itself shows interpolation in the compromise petition. It is submitted that the minors, who had already attained majority on the date of filing of the compromise petition, without disclosing it to learned Advocate, namely, Ramashish Sharma, signed on behalf of the minors. It is also submitted that the acts done by Rekha Mahto and his wife Manmati Devi were kept secret and was not disclosed anywhere. For the