JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner by his order dated June 13, 1974 recommending that the revision may be dismissed. 2. Heard the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts of the case are that Surya Deo and others had filed one suit on August 23, 1960 under Section 60 of U.P. Tenancy Act against Rikhpatiya, Daulatiya, Dalsingaria, Sitaram, Chaturi, Devi, Ram Dayal and Din Dayal. In the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiffs are the Kastkar Sarahmuaiyan; that the plaintiffs have redeemed the mortgage which was in favour of Sitaram and others i.e. defendant set No. 2 in respect of plots of schedule B of the plaint. The name of defendant set No. 1 i.e. Rikhpatiya, Dualitiya and Dalsingariya are wrongly recorded over the plots of schedule A and defendants set No. 2 Sita Ram and others are wrongly recorded as mortgagee over the land of plots of Schedule B as mentioned in the plaint. Their names should be struck off and the plaintiffs may be recorded in their place. Khatauni of 1367 Fasli has also been filed which goes to show that over Khata No. 66 the plots in suit were recorded alongwith other plots in the name of Rikhpatiya and others and Sita Ram and others and Surya Deo and others. Written statement was filed by Sitaram Dubey on May 24, 1963 Issues were framed and after that some plots were also added in the plaint. Then again written statement was filed by Ram Kripal, Ram Jhalak and Kashi Nath. Issues were also framed in the case. Then it so happened that on July 25, 1963 a compromise was filed on between Surya Deo, Dharam deo, Brahma Deo and Sukhdeo (plaintiff as one party) and Mst Dalsingriya and Mst Daulatiya (through counsel) as the other party and on the basis of this compromise the suit was decided in terms of compromise. The land is in respect of area which is affected by the custom of (Dhar Dhura) hence it is affected by the main current of the river and in this area U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is not applicable. 4. The application for setting aside the aforesaid compromise decree dated July 25, 1963 was filed by Ram Kripal, Ram Jhalak and Kashi Nath. 4. The application for setting aside the aforesaid compromise decree dated July 25, 1963 was filed by Ram Kripal, Ram Jhalak and Kashi Nath. It is alleged that in that Khata Dharamdeo and his father had 1/4th share. Sitaram Dubey had 1/4th share and Smt. Rikhpatiya, Daulatiya and Dalsingariya had 1/2 share and they were in possession according to their share. Rikhpatiya, Daulatiya and Dalsingriya had transferred their interest through registered sale deed on June 17, 1963 to the applicant Ram Kripal, Ram Jhalak and Kashi Nath and thus she had lost her interest over her share in the Khata on June 17, 1963 and she had no right to transfer the same subsequently in any way. Objections to this restoration application have been filed and the witness were also examined by the different parties. 5. The trial court of December 12, 1972 considering the evidence of both the parties, allowed the restoration application and the Additional Commissioner has recommended for dismissing the revision and thereby maintaining the order of the trial court dated December 12, 1972. The application had some interest and it cannot be said that he is a stranger to the land in suit and interested person can file restoration application and he can bring to the notice of the court that compromise decree was not in accordance with law. Such decree can be set aside by the court. In such cases the court's discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing. It is conducive in the interest of justice that the dispute of the parties should be decided on merits. 6. I, therefore, accept the reference. The revision is dismissed with costs throughout.