Salil Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Dr.Vinod Kumar Rai, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sanjai Singh, counsel for the respondent as well as Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1, 2 & 3.

2. The facts of the case are that petitioner instituted Case No.10 of 1986 under section 176 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 against respondent no. 4 praying for partition of the suit property. Subsequently, an application dated 19.3.1986 was filed in Case No.10 of 1986 ostensibly incorporating the terms of an alleged compromise entered into between the petitioner and respondent no.4 whereby the parties had agreed for partition of the suit property in accordance with the terms of the compromise. The said compromise application was stated to be signed by the petitioner as well as respondent no.4. However, subsequently, but before the compromise application was verified by the Court and made a decree of the Court, respondent no. 4 filed an application dated 7.5.1986 in Case No. 10 of 1986 denying the compromise and in the said application, it was alleged by respondent no.4 that the alleged compromise was never read over to respondent no.4. The Trial Court i.e the respon