Judgment 1. Reg: I.A.No. 6184 of 2005. This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the revision application. 2. It has been averred that on account of wrong legal advice, petitioner had resorted to the remedy of appeal but later on it was realised that remedy of appeal is not available, and as such, prayer for withdrawal of appeal was made which was granted by order dated 1.12.2005 passed in M.A. No. 12 of 2004 and immediately thereafter, petitioner has filed the revision application on 20.12.2005. 3. I am of the opinion that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in filing the revision application. Delay in filing the revision application is condoned. 4. Application stands allowed. 5. Now, I take up the revision application. 6. Defendant-petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 29.5.2004 passed by the Subordinate Judge, III, Sasaram in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2001 rejecting the application to recall the compromise decree, has preferred this application. 7. Plaintiff filed the suit bearing T.S. No. 93 of 1993. Said suit was decreed in terms of the compromise by judgment and decree dated 4.2.1994. In the light of the preliminary decree, final decree was also prepared. After about seven years, the petitioner filed an application on 31.1.2001 under Order 23 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of the aforesaid decree, inter alia, on the ground that in fact no compromise petition was filed by her. In support of her statement, she examined five witnesses. 8. By reason of the impugned order, said application has been dismissed. 9. Mr. Sahay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the compromise petition was not filed by this defendant-petitioner and only on the ground that the compromise petition filed was found to be in order by the office, while recording the compromise, the prayer of this defendant-petitioner has been rejected. 10. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sahay. The Court below, on appraisal of evidence, came to the conclusion that this defendant-petitjoner had filed compromise petition which also bore the signature of her lawyer. The office had submitted the report that the compromise petition was in order. 11. The finding arrived at by the Court below can not be said to be erroneous calling for interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 12. The office had submitted the report that the compromise petition was in order. 11. The finding arrived at by the Court below can not be said to be erroneous calling for interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 12. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly.