JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra. learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Defendant No. 4 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge-V, Sr. Division, Saran at Chapra in Partition Suit No. 14 of 1984. 3. All the parties in the suit have entered into the compromise and a petition to that extent has been filed before the trial court. Subsequently, Defendant No. 4 filed a petition alongwith an affidavit with a prayer to make certain amendments with regard to the area of the properties described in Schedule-VII of the Compromise Petition which, according to him, should have been 2 Kathas, whereas in the compromise petition it has been described as 1 Katha 16 Dhurs. 4. Certain parties to the suit, who are obviously parties to the compromise, like Hiralal Prasad, Defendant No. 4, Yogendra Prasad. Janardan Prasad and Gopaljee Prasad, who are Plaintiffs, have objected to such amendment stating in their rejoinders that all the parties have entered into the compromise by signing the compromise petition and the statements of the parties have also been recorded by the Court. They have further stated that the properties given to the Defendant No. 4-Petitioner were in his full knowledge and he had put his signature after reading and understanding the contents of the compromise petition. Further, the compromise has not been made on the basis of the documents but the basis is the compromise which has been arrived at between the parties. Others have also objected to the petition of the Defendant No. 4-Petitioner. Defendant No. 4-Petitioner neither denies the compromise nor does he say that any fraud has been committed upon him. 5. In consideration of all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that other parties to the compromise have not consented, the trial court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the compromise petition concerned. 6. I do not find any illegality in the order of the trial court which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 7. The Civil Revision application is dismissed.