JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member. - Revision no. 79 of 1979-id of District Nainital has been filed by Satya Pal Khanna and others against the order dated 30-5-80 passed by the learned Commissioner Kumaon Division, in Review petition no. 2 of 1979-30 by which the learned Commissioner has reviewed the order dated 1-9-79 passed in Appeal no. 157 of 1977-78. 2. Second Appeal No. 9 of 1979-80 has been filed on 3-12-1979 by Laxmi Kumar and others against the judgment and decree dated 1-9-79 passed by Sri G. K. Arora, Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital. 3. A review petition had also been filed on 3-10-79 before the learned Commissioner against the judgment and decree dated 1-9-79 and the said review petition was decided on 30-5-80 by the learned Commissioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that Satya Pal Khanna, Chaman Lal Khanna and Surendra Kumar Khanna were not aggrieved parties as they had entered into a compromise and they had no right to agitate against their own interests. Against this, the learned counsel for the revisionists submits that they could bring any illegality to the notice of the court. 6. I find that since Satya Pal Khanna, Chaman Lal Khanna and Surendra Kumar Khanna have already entered into a compromise, they were not aggrieved parties and had no locus standi to come up before this court in revision. There is no provision under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which permits a party, which is not an aggrieved party, to come up before a court of law as no cause of action remains to be decided between the parties who have entered into a compromise. Moreover, the revisionists never approached the trial court where they had entered into a compromise with any such allegation that the compromise was illegal or improper nor did they go to the court of the learned Commissioner for retrieval of their grievance, if any. As such I hold that the revision filed by the revisionists is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the revision is dismissed having no force. 7. I find that a review petition was filed under Order 47, Rule 1 C. P. C. before the learned Commissioner against the order dated 1-9-79 on 3-10-79. As such I hold that the revision filed by the revisionists is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the revision is dismissed having no force. 7. I find that a review petition was filed under Order 47, Rule 1 C. P. C. before the learned Commissioner against the order dated 1-9-79 on 3-10-79. Order 47 Rule 1 C. P. C. reads as under : - "O. 47 R. (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a court of small cause, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review or apply for the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order." 8. I find that the review petition before the learned Commissioner was filed on 3-10-79. On that day no appeal had been preferred by any of the parties against the decision of the learned Commissioner dated 1-9-79. As such 1 hold that the review petition before the learned Commissioner was maintainable. Since the review petition filed on 3-10-79 was admitted on 4-10-79, the order dated 1-9-79 passed by the learned Commissioner was under judicial consideration and was put into jeopardy and, hence Second Appeal No. 9 of 1979-80 preferred on 3-12-1979 was not maintainable before this court. 9. The learned Commissioner vide his order dated 30-5-80 passed in review petition has set aside the order dated 1-9-79. The learned Commissioner has exercised his jurisdiction of review as vested in him by law and has committed no illegality in deciding the review petition filed by the parties concerned. 10. As such second appeal no. 9 of 1979-80/ has become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly. 11. This order disposes of Revision no. 79 of 1979-80 and Second Appeal No. 9 of 1979-80/Nainital.