JUDGMENT 1. - By this miscellaneous application, the petitioner has prayed for revision and revival of the order dated 26.4.2002 whereby SB Civil Revision Petition No.112/1999 was dismissed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the stay petition was also dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed to amend the order and direction dated 6.2.2002 by passing appropriate order and direction to the respondent to make the payment of Rs. 50,000/- in place of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the applicant Smt. Geeta Devi who is the legal heir of late Kanhaiya Lal Rathore,original defendant-petitioner in SB Civil Revision No.112/1999. Smt. Savitri Devi and the applicant Smt. Geeta Devi were broguth on record in the aforesaid civil revision petition after the death of the original defendant-petitioner Kanhaiya Lal Rathore. Subsequently, Smt. Savitri Devi also died on 24.12.2002. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-non petitioner Uma Shankar Singodia filed Civil Suit No.51/1997 for rendition of accounts and perpetual injunction against the original defendant Kanhaiya Lal which is pending in the court of Addl. Distt.Judge No.1, Ajmer titled Uma Shankar Singodia V. Kanhaiya Lal wherein an application under Order 7, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code was filed by the original defendant on the ground that the civil suit is not maintainable on account of the availability of alternative remedy of arbitration as per the partnership deed which was rejected on15.10.1998, against which, the aforesaid SB Civil Revision Petition No.112/1999 was filed by the original defendant-petitioner Kanhaiya Lal Rathore. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision petition, the original defendant Kanhaiya Lal Rathore diedand his legal heirs Smt. Savitri Devi (wife) and the petitioner Smt. Geeta Devi (daughter) were brought on record on 4.1.2002and the compromise was arrived at between the parties on6.2.2002 which was duly attested by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial)of this Court. According to para 3 of the aforesaid compromise dated 16.2.2002, the plaintiff Uma Shankar had agreed to make payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month to Smt. Savitri Devi by depositing the same in her bank account. Smt. Savitri Devi and the applicant Smt. Geeta Devi are the signatories to the said compromise being wife and the daughter of the original defendant Kanhaiya Lal Rathore. 10,000/- per month to Smt. Savitri Devi by depositing the same in her bank account. Smt. Savitri Devi and the applicant Smt. Geeta Devi are the signatories to the said compromise being wife and the daughter of the original defendant Kanhaiya Lal Rathore. The said revision petition was dismissed ashaving become infructuous in view of the settlement on 26.4.2002and thereafter, Smt. Savitri Devi died on 24.12.2002, therefore, the present miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Geeta Devi for the aforesaid relief as specified in para 1 of this order. 3. The compromise dated 6.2.2002 (Anx.2) is as follows: ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB] t;iqjA ,l-ch- flfoy fjohtu uacj&112@99 jkthukek@le>kSrk --------- fd i{kdkjksa dk fuEu izdkj ls vkil esa le>kSrk gks x;k gS& 1 ;g fd dUgS;kyky th dh e`R;q ds i/kkr vc gksVy v'kksd ds izca/kd dk dk;Z Jh mek'kadj flxksn;k fd;k djsaxsA ftlesa Jherh lkfof= ckbZ o Jherh xhrk nsoh fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi ugh djsxhA 2 ;g fd gksVy dh iw.kZ ftEesnkjh ftlesa leLr [kpsZ 'kkfey gS oks Jh mek'kadj flxksn;k fd;k djsaxsA 3 ;g fd Jh mek'kadj izR;sd ekg dh rkjh[k 5rd :I;s 10]000 :I;s nl gtkj :I;s gksVy ds fglkc ds isVs Jherh lkfof= nsoh dks vnk djsaxsa tks gj :i esa Jherh lkfof= nsoh ds [kkrk la[;k] cSad dk ] esa tek djk nsxsA Jherh lkfof= nsoh ,d lirkg esa vdkm.V cSd esa [kksydj [kkrk uacj crk nsaxhA vr% izkFkZrk gS fd mijksDr jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij vkns' ikfjr djsaA gLrk{kj 1- mek 'kadj flxksfn;k g- 2- Jheuh lkfof= ckbZ g- 3- xhrk nsoh g- xokg 1 4. Taking into consideration the compromise dated 6.2.2002,this Court dismissed the revision petition in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the stay petition was also dismissed. The order dated 26.4.2002 is as under: "Learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter has been settled between the parties and the settlement has been placed on record of the revision petition.In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the revision petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as having become infructuous. As a result of dismissal of revision petition the stay petition is also dismissed." 5. Submission of counsel for the applicant-petitioner is that the original defendant-petitioner late Kanhaiya Lal was having 50%share in the said partnership and on account of the said fact, Rs. As a result of dismissal of revision petition the stay petition is also dismissed." 5. Submission of counsel for the applicant-petitioner is that the original defendant-petitioner late Kanhaiya Lal was having 50%share in the said partnership and on account of the said fact, Rs. 10,000/- was ordered to be paid to Smt. Savitri Devi in view of the settlement. Smt. Savitri Devi died on 24.12.2002 leaving behind her Smt. Geeta Devi as the sole heir who is also said to have executed a Will of the entire immovable property and right of the share in the business automatically vested in Smt. Geeta Devi being the legal heir, therefore, she is entitled to the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- which now be increased to Rs. 50,000/-. However, the aforesaid said Will is not on record of this application. Counsel has also mentioned one more fact that the plaintiff Uma Shankar is husband of Smt. Geeta Devi but he is not maintaining her. 6. Counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that theterms of the compromise, to which Smt. Geeta Devi is one of the signatories, cannot be modified subsequently by this Court on account of death of Smt. Savitri Devi and the ground of not maintaining Smt. Geeta Devi by Uma Shanker plaintiff being the subsequent events to the settlement as well as dismissal of the revision petition in view of the settlement/compromise. Counsel also submits that Civil Suit No. 51/1997 is still pending. 7. Having considered the aforesaid rival submissions of counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in the settlement /compromise Smt. Geeta Devi has not been given any right to receive the amount and she is simply a signatory to the said settlement / compromise, therefore, after the decision of the revision petition on the basis of the compromise and consequential dismissal of the revision petition as well as stay petition, this miscellaneous application for altering the terms of the said compromise / settlement is not maintainable on the ground of aforesaid subsequent events and the same is dismissed. However, Ideem it proper that the parties may appear before the trial court and take appropriate steps for early decision of the civil suit. 8. The applicant Smt. Geeta Devi is at liberty to move any other application before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.Application Dismissed. *******