JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated April 29, 1970. the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the revision petition be allowed and the order of the learned trial court dated March 10, 1970, rejecting the compromise, be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The suit was under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. Sukhni and Harbans are the plaintiffs and Jokhu and Ram Garib are the defendants, but, only the first three have appeared and the court had ordered on October 13, 1969 for ex parte proceedings against him. However, the compromise filed on January 21, 1969 was entered into amongst the first three parties only and was not signed by Ram Garib. It did not specify any shares but only specified two lots, one for Sukhai and Haribans and the other for Jokhu and Ram Garib. It does not give 4 lots for the 4 parties. 4. The learned counsel has argued that even if Ram Garib was not a party to the compromise, Jokhu was bound by the compromise. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that a compromise not signed by all the parties is not binding in respect of lots. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has not properly appreciated the distinction between ex parte proceedings against one of the defendants and decision thereafter, and a compromise decree in the absence of one defendant. In the latter case, since the compromise is not complete and since in a suit for division any compromise amongst the parties not including even one plaintiff or one defendant loses significance, no decree on the basis of compromise is possible. It may be that fraud was not established by Jokhu but the compromise is unlawful and incomplete for several defects. A compromise about the division of holding into lots is not possible without all parties entering into it. It is not a compromise which any party can contemplate as binding on the consenting parties and not binding, those who stand out, it must be one and entire, otherwise it will have no effect. 6. In the instant case, Ram Garib is out. Even Haribans has not been identified by the counsel and doubt about his identity lingers. It is not a compromise which any party can contemplate as binding on the consenting parties and not binding, those who stand out, it must be one and entire, otherwise it will have no effect. 6. In the instant case, Ram Garib is out. Even Haribans has not been identified by the counsel and doubt about his identity lingers. Jokhu can speak about his consent only, and cannot be held a legal representative of Ram Garib without a proper authority. Since one lot was supposed to belong to Jokhu and Ram Garib both, the compromise could be deemed valid from the side of defendants only if Jokhu and Ram Garib both signed. In the absence of agreement by Ram Garib, the consent of Jokhu also becomes incomplete and invalid. The lot is joint and cannot be deemed valid for Jokhu and invalid for Ram Garib. 7. Then, in the present case of ex parte proceedings against Ram Garib, the shares have to be legally determined on the basis of evidence and the lots proposed may not be consistent with the legally determined shares. So, the lots also will have to be prepared by the usual revenue authorities. The recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, also goes 4 against the trial court's order dated November 7, 1969 that the rights of the defendant Ram Garib will not be affected by the compromise. This order dated November 7, 1969 is valid and still stands, having neither been challenged nor set aside. 8. In the circumstances, I agree with the finding of the learned trial court, consistent with the ruling of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in 1934 A.I.R. (Mad.) 485, that in a partition suit, a compromise to be complete and effective according to the intention of the parties, requires consent of all. The recommendation is based on misconception and I find the learned trial court committed no error, nor failed in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in him. 9. Accordingly, the reference is rejected and the revision is dismissed. The records of the lower courts be sent back without delay.