According to the appellant, the defendants had instituted the suit before the Assistant Collector in which his father namely Chunkai was made as one of the opposite party.
The appellant filed a suit No.
It, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Munsif and directed him to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Nil of 1988 which was dismissed by the District Judge, Banda, by his order dated February 17, 1988.
1 and 2, set aside the order passed by the District Judge, affirming the order of the Munsif, and held that the suit filed by the appellant was number maintainable being barred in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
He never appeared in the proceeding and was number even aware of it.
The appellant, accordingly, sought a declaration that the decree dated April 25, 1979 passed by the Assistant Collector, Class I, Karwi, may be cancelled or it may be declared as void ab initio, inoperative and number binding upon him.
Against the order passed by the Munsif, the appellant preferred an appeal M.C.A.No.21 of 1985 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated April 14, 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karwi, Banda .
Hence, the suit was maintainable before a civil companyrt.
The Additional District Judge rightly pointed out that the suit filed by the appellant was based on the allegation that the decree passed by the Assistant Collector was based on a fraudulent companypromise petition and it did number involve any adjudication of rights or interests in the agricultural lands.
The defendants respondents took the matter in revision Civil Revision No.
It is a brief order in which the High Court referred to the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 A, and relying upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition.
The Munsif by his order dated January 7, 1988 dismissed the objection and found and held that the suit was maintainable.
It is the case of the appellant that numbernotice of the suit was ever served upon his father Chunkai.
The Munsif by his order dated October 1, 1985 upheld the defendants objection and held that the suit was number maintainable before a civil companyrt.
He did number sign any companypromise petition and his alleged signature on the companypromise petition dated October 7, 1971 was faked.
When the matter came before the Munsif on remand, the defendants once again objected to the maintainability of the suit, this time raising the companytention that it was barred under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Against the orders passed by the Munsif and the District Judge, the defendants preferred a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court, as numbered above, allowed the writ petition holding that the suit was number maintainable.
43 of 1980 in the companyrt of Munsif, Karwi Banda seeking a declaration that the decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Class I, in a suit under sections 176, 178 and 182 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act was fraudulent, inoperative and number binding upon him.
Aftab Alam, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 11, 2003 passed by the Allahabad High Court by which it allowed the writ petition filed by respondent number.
He had died much earlier and was number even alive in 1979 when the decree was passed.
In that suit, a companypromise petition was filed on October 7, 1971 with the fake signature of Chunkai and on that basis a companypromise decree finally came to be passed on April 25, 1979.
