Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—This is a second round of litigation in the High Court. The only point mooted presently is whether the issue sought to be raised by the plaintiff-respondent herein is barred by Section 11 of CPC or not. The background facts may be noticed in brief :

Bhairon Bux was the recorded tenant of the revenue land which is subject matter of the present litigation. The petitioner is the daughter of Bhairon Bux. Bhairon Bux died long ago before the date of vesting i.e. 1.7.1952 leaving behind him his widow Smt.Samudra Devi who after about two years of death of Bhairon Bux, remarried with one Ram Nath. Bharat Lal, respondent No. 4 herein is son of Samudra Devi and Ram Nath. Smt.Samudra Devi succeeded to the property of Bhairon Bux and her name it is admitted, was recorded in the revenue record and continued to be so even after her remarriage with Ram Nath. The Village wherein the agricultural land lay was notified under Section 4(2) of U.P Consolidation of Land Holding Act herein after referred to as the Act. No objection disputing the right, title and interest of Smt. Samudra Devi over the land in dispute was filed and accordingly chak was carved out in her name. When the consolidation proceedings were going on in the Village, Smt. Samudra Devi died in the year 1977. After her death a dispute arose in between the petitioner and Bharat Lal (herein after referred as plaintiff). Both these persons filed applications for recording their names in place of Smt.Samudra Devi. These applications were numbered separately before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. According to the petitioner, a compromise was arrived at in between the petitioner and the plaintiff, wherein the plaintiff agreed that the land in dispute may be recorded in the name of the petitioner. The said compromise application is dated 7.12.1977 and signed by the plaintiff. The signature of plaintiff was verified by his counsel Shri Ram Bahadur Singh, Advocate on 10.1.1978 and the order was passed consequently on 18.1.1978 by the Consolidation Officer.

2. The plaintiff Bharat lal instituted Suit No. 33/74 of 1986-87 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 229-B/209 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act for declaration of his rights over the disputed plots, eleven in numbers, on the pleas inter alia that the alleged compromise was not signed by him and therefore, the order was obtained from the Consolidation Officer by playing fraud and as such it is not binding on him; he being the son of Smt.Samudra Devi and Ram Nath inherited the property in dispute and is in occupation thereof; that against the order dated 18.1.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer, he preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed as barred by time.

In the written statement, the petitioner, came out with the case that during the life time of Smt.Samudra, the Village came under the Consolidation Operation and after death of Smt.Samudra, a compromise was arrived at in between the petitioner and plaintiff himself and an order was passed by the consolidation officer on the basis of the said compromise, which is binding on the plaintiff. The compromise application was signed by the plaintiff and was verified by his counsel Shri Ram Bahadur Singh. It was further pleaded that suit is barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H.Act.

3. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, number of issues were struck and one of the issue was whether the suit is barred by res judicata or not. It was issue No. 9. The Trial Court by the order dated 21.12.1989. without giving any reason, opined that the suit is not barred by Section 11 of CPC and fixed the next date in the suit for further progress. The said order was carried in revision being Revision No. 20 of 1990 by the present petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad who dismissed it on 16.7.1970 which has been confirmed further by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 82 of 1989-9