JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur (Admn.) dated 4-3-1986 whereby it has been recommended that the revision be allowed and the order of the trial court dated 17-5-1983 be set aside and the application of the restoration moved by the opposite party be heard and redecided. 2. Heard the argument of both the parties and perused the record. 3. It appears that a suit under Section 229-B was filed by Hukum Ali. On 27-7-1973 an application was moved allegedly, by defendant (Talukedar for permission for time to file written statement. Thereafter a compromise was filed by both the parties on 14-12-1973 and a decree on the basis of this compromise was passed on 16-1-1974. Thereafter, on 6-2-1982 an application was moved by the defendant with the allegation that he had no knowledge of the suit and he had not filed any compromise and that the decree passed on 16-1-1974 was in fact ex parte and was liable to be set aside. Notice was issued to the plaintiff but it was not served, hence publication was made in the paper, the court obtained the L.T.I. of the defendant and sent it to the expert for comparison with that appearing on the compromise. The expert reported that the two L.T.Is Were different. An application on behalf of Hukum Ali was moved on 22-5-1982 with the request that the ex parte proceeding against him be dropped and he be permitted to file written statement. Thereafter the plaintiff died and his son Azizullah was substituted. He filed an objection on 4-9-1982 with the main allegation that after the compromise decree had been passed the village had been notified under section 4 C. H. Act, hence it is the consolidation courts which can determine the question of abatement and the validity of decree passed in this suit. This objection was rejected and the trial court held that the compromise decree had not been signed by the defendant, and therefore set it aside holding it to be ex parte against him. The plaintiff went up in revision against this order which has come up before this court on reference. The learned Additional Commissioner had recommended that the application for restoration deserve to the reheard on merits and, therefore, has recommended the case to be remanded back to the trial court. 4. The plaintiff went up in revision against this order which has come up before this court on reference. The learned Additional Commissioner had recommended that the application for restoration deserve to the reheard on merits and, therefore, has recommended the case to be remanded back to the trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the trial court should have invited the evidence of both the parties on the point whether the compromise had been signed by the defendant or not and without taking the evidence of the plaintiff the application for restoration could not be allowed. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the main contention of the defendant was that he had not put his L.T.I. on the compromise and he had no knowledge of this suit and had given an affidavit also to that effect but the plaintiff has neither contradicted these allegations nor he has filed any counter affidavit, hence in these circumstances there was no necessity to take the evidence of any party and his application deserved to have been allowed out rightly. It was also argued that the plaintiff could have led evidence only it he had contradicted the allegation of the defendant which he did not do, hence there was no question of taking his evidence and that the evidence of the expert is, therefore, perfectly admissible. I fully agree with the argument of the opposite party. The plaintiff m his objection did not contradict the allegation made by the defendant nor did he state that the compromise bore the L.T.I. of the defendant. The Affidavit filed by the defendant was also not controverted. In these circumstances there was no option open for the court but to have accepted the contention of the defendant and to have allowed the application for restoration. The court took strict precaution and obtained the evidence of the expert also whose evidence has clearly established that the specimen L.T.I. of the defendant does not tally with that existing on the compromise. Consequently it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the deed of compromise is nothing but a forged document and, therefore, a decree passed on that basis was merely ex parte against the defendant and deserved to be set aside. The trial court, therefore, rightly set aside the compromise decree and restored the suit. Consequently it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the deed of compromise is nothing but a forged document and, therefore, a decree passed on that basis was merely ex parte against the defendant and deserved to be set aside. The trial court, therefore, rightly set aside the compromise decree and restored the suit. Its order, therefore, does not call for any interference. Since the village had already been notified under Section (4) C.H. Act, as admitted by both the parties the suit has been rightly held to have abated under Section (5) of the C.H. Act by the trial court. Consequently the order of the trial court is perfectly valid and deserves to be maintained. The revision is without force, hence is rejected, The reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner is rejected.