ORDER This revision petition has been filed under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, against an order dated 17 5.1994 passed by the learned Commissioner, Mandi Division in revenue revision No 119/93. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that one Shri Kranti Kumar & another filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Hamirpur for partition of land comprised in Khata No.10, Khatauni No.23 to 32, Kita 210, measuring 1800.3.26 Sq. Mtrs. situated in Up Mohal Gandhi, Tehsil and Distt Hamirpur. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade sanctioned the partition on 22.10 192. Shri Ran Singh, the present petition filed an appeal against this order of the Assistant collector 1st Grade before the Distt Collector, Hamirpur who dismissed the appeal vide an order dated 29.3.1993.Shri Ran Singh further field a revision petition before the Commissioner Mandi Division who upheld the orders of both the courts below vide his order dated 17.5.1994 against which Shri Ran Singh has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate and Shri N.K Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of petitioner and respondents, respectively. 4. The record of the courts below ere called for. I have also heard the counsels for both the petitioners and respondents. Counsel for the petitioner stressed that since in revision petition 167/94 titled as Shri Birbal versus Ran Singh Jaggi, it had been decided to refer the case back to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hamirpur and in this case also the parties were the same and similar view could be taken in the matter He also produced a copy of the decision dated 27.6.1998 taken before the Sr. Sub-Judge, Hamirpur as the Lok Adalat in the case of Birbal Versus Ran Singh where the parties had reached a compromise about not raising construction on the suit land involving Khasra No. 332/1,324, 313 measuring 203 17 Sq Mtres. The parties had also agreed that the partition effected earlier was invalid However the decree sheer of the case has not been filed with these documents. 5. I have carefully gone through the orders of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 17 5.1994 regarding which revision petition was field No point of law has been raised in support of the revision petition at the time of arguments. 5. I have carefully gone through the orders of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 17 5.1994 regarding which revision petition was field No point of law has been raised in support of the revision petition at the time of arguments. I am also of the opinion that the learned counsel for petitioner had the option to withdraw the petition but he did not do so. Only the counsel for respondent has filed some documents referring to some compromise effected by the parties before the Lok Adalat. When the revision petition comes up before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) only the points of law can be raised, documentary evidence can not be adduced at this sage. 6. In view of the above, I see no case to interfere with the orders of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 17 5 1994. The revision petition is rejected. However, the parties can seek execution of the compromise decree if any, through the appropriate revenue court. 7. Announced in the open Court to day the 3rd march 2006. Record of lower courts be returned and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion