P. K. Jain, J.

(1.) HEARD Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioners filed Suit No. 1179 of 1970 for declaration in respect of agricultural land and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs (petitioners) over the disputed land. It appears that during the pendency of the suit a compromise (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) was filed before the trial court which was verified before in charge Munsif on 22.12.1972. Before the compromise could be accepted by the trial court, objections were filed by the defendants. THE trial court overruled the objections vide order dated 1st March, 1975 and recorded the compromise. A Civil Misc. Appeal No. 232 of 1975 was preferred by the defendant Abdul Ghafoor respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition. THE appeal appears to have been transferred by the District Judge to the court of Additional Civil Judge (J. S. C. C.) who allowed the appeal holding that the Court had no Jurisdiction to pass the decree and further, that the compromise involved transfer of Sirdari rights in agricultural land and was thus against the public policy and was vitiated. THE appeal was allowed by the Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur on 28.1.1976. Civil revision against the judgment and order of the appellate court was filed before the High Court and was returned on 13.2.1976 for proper presentation before the District Judge, Gorakhpur and consequently the revision was filed before the District Judge. Gorakhpur on 25.2.1976. THE District Judge, Gorakhpur dismissed the revision as not maintainable vide order dated 3.3.1976 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). Against order dated 3.3.1976 the petitioners filed revision before the High Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30.3.1979 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) wherein the High Court held that the revision was maintainable before the District Judge and consequently, remitted the case back to the District Judge for disposing of the revision filed earlier on merit. Again an objection was raised before the District Judge regarding maintainability of the revision which was sustained by the District Judge vide judgment and order dated 4th December, 1980 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition).

By the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge the Judgment and orders of the District Judge dated 4.12.1980 and of the appellate court dated 28.1.1976 on the ground that once the order dated 3.3.1976 passed by the District Judge holding that the revision against the appellate order was not maintainable was set aside by the High Court vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition, the District Judge had no option except to decide the same on merit. Order dated 30.3.1979 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) operated as res judicata and the question of maintainability of the revision could not have been gone into by the learned District Judge and further that the appellate court acted without jurisdiction in holding that the compromise filed could not be recorded as it amounted to transfer of property not permissible by law. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed the present petition only on the ground that after the order of the High Court dated 30.3.1979 in Civil Revision No. 862 of 1976 the District Judge had no jurisdiction to question the maintainability of the revision. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the learned District Judge has not decided the revision on merit, by quashing the impugned order dated 4th December, 1980 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) the case may be remitted back to the District Judge for disposing of Civil Revision No. 862 of 1976 on merit.

(3.) IT appears from the perusal of Annexure 6 copy of the order dated 3.3.1976 that the learned District Judge while rejecting the revision as not maintainable took the view that the appeal was transferred by the District Judge to the Court