JUDGMENT V.S. Pandey, Member. - This review petition has been presented on 11.2.85 against the order dated 9.10.72 passed by Sri M. Zaheer, the then Member. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and gone through the records. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that Bishambhar Singh, son of Janak Singh, filed a suit against Amar Singh, Bijendra Singh, Ram Bahadur Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh, sons of Janak Singh, under Sec. 209 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 in respect of the disputed plots. The suit was decreed, and the appeal filed by Amar Singh and others was also rejected by the Addl. Commissioner. Second Appeal No. 69 of 1969-70 was filed, in which the parties filed a compromise, which was duly verified. Both the parties are real brothers, and it was agreed that all the plots in dispute will now go to Amar Singh and others, and the plaintiff-respondent, Bishambhar Singh, will have nothing to do with the land in suit. It was further agreed that the defendant-appellants, Amar Singh and others, will execute a sale deed in the names of the sons of Bishambhar Singh in respect of 2.40 acres of land from their Chak No. 186, whose total area is 5.70 acres. The second appeal was accordingly allowed in terms of this compromise. Now, the review petition has been filed, stating that the respondent Bishambhar Singh filed suit No. 295 of 1978 for setting aside the compromise decree dated 9.10.72, which was dismissed by the trial court on 21.11.79 on the grounds that the plaintiff did not offer to pay the stamp duty regarding the sale deed, and the defendants, Amar Singh and others, were not at fault. His Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1982 was also dismissed on 19.5.83 by the District Judge, Mainpuri. Second Appeal No. 2168 of 1983 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court, which was dismissed on 27.9.84 with the following observations:- "Having heard learned counsel, it does not appear that on the ground that the respondents have not been willing the execute the deed of sale agreed upon in the consent decree passed between the parties, the plaintiff-appellant can sue for cancellation thereof. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff-appellant, if any, to seek the enforcement to the agreement in the form of specific performance. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff-appellant, if any, to seek the enforcement to the agreement in the form of specific performance. Dismissed summarily." It was further stated that then Bishambhar Singh again pressed Amar Singh and others for specific performance for execution of the sale-deed in terms of the compromise, but they failed to execute the sale deed. It has now been revealed that Chak No. 186 does not belong to Amar Singh and others, and it is the Bhumidhari of other persons, and as such they have no authority or jurisdiction to execute the sale-deed. in respect of Chak No. 186, whose area is only 0.85 acre. They have khata No. 4 comprising total area of 8.76 acres, and as such they should have executed the sale deed to the extent of 2.40 acres. In these circumstances, it has been stated that the compromises decree dated 9.10.72 passed by this Court is un-executable, and so, it is liable to be set aside. An affidavit of Bishambhar Singh has also been filed alongwith this application. In spite of notice, only Vikalatnama of Sri Ravi Prakash, Advocate, has been filed. No counter-affidavit has been filed against the review petition. 4. However, it has been argued that the review petition is highly time-barred. But we find that the applicant has clearly mentioned the circumstances which led him to file this review application. The facts are that there was a mistake in the compromise filed by the parties, and Amar Singh and others had agreed to transfer 2-40 acres of land out of their Chak, but the Chak number was mentioned as Chak No. 186, which did not belong to them. In these circumstances, the compromise decree was really un-executable, and personally they were not prepared to part with their Khata No. 4. In these circumstance, justice demands that the compromise decree be set aside, and the Second No. 69 of 1969-70 be heard on merits. 5. We, therefore, allow the review petition, set aside the compromise decree, and order that the second appeal will be heard by the learned single Member having jurisdiction over District Mainpuri, on merits.