JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This second appeal was converted into revision which was filed by Badamia and her minor daughter Sewapati against order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated March 10, 1975. My brother Member Sri B.K. Tandon had allowed the revision application by his order dated December 26, 1977 but in review application by his order dated July 21, 1978 he had vacated the order dated December 26, 1977. The applicant had filed writ against order dated July 21, 1978 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on March 21, 1979 confirming the order dated July 21, 1978, therefore, now revision application is for disposal. 2. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that on December 28, 1971 no date was fixed and application for withdrawing the appeal was filed through new counsel and a fraud was played upon the applicant and the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn. An application was moved to set it aside on March 9, 1972 which was dismissed on March 10, 1975. That objection was filed and affidavit was filed in disapproval by the admitted Pairokar and brother of Smt. Badamia Sri Sheo Sampati against whom affidavit was filed on December 8, 1971 in a case No. 125 under Section 182 of I.P.C. Even after that affidavit in case under Section 182 I.P.C. Sheo Sampati was admittedly the Pairokar of the applicant, therefore, it has got no bearing, No fraud has been alleged on the court and if any fraud was committed on the applicants their remedy lies in a regular suit. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the applicant on Order 32, Rule 7 of the Old C.P.C. Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 7 prohibits entering into an agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor without the leave of the court. In this case neither any agreement nor any compromise has been entered into on behalf of the minor Sewapati, daughter of Badamia applicant. Only application for withdrawal of appeal has been filed which is not covered by agreement or compromise, hence that prohibition is not applicable to it. Reliance was placed or A.I.R. 1950 Allahabad page 617. In this case neither any agreement nor any compromise has been entered into on behalf of the minor Sewapati, daughter of Badamia applicant. Only application for withdrawal of appeal has been filed which is not covered by agreement or compromise, hence that prohibition is not applicable to it. Reliance was placed or A.I.R. 1950 Allahabad page 617. In my considered opinion as no compromise was filed, therefore, neither order 32, Rule 7 of the old C.P.C. nor the said ruling is applicable to the present case. 4. In view of the above in my considered opinion this revision application has got no force hence it is hereby rejected.