Sanjay Misra, J.— Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Verma learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal heir of Smt. Jagdei (respondent no. 4). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioner for cancellation of sale deed Smt. Jagdei was a contesting defendant and the suit was compromised. An application under Section 151 CPC filed by her against the compromise decree was rejected by the Trial Court Smt. Jagdei feeling aggrieved filed Civil Revision no. 206 of 1985 (Smt. Jagdei Vs Smt. Mithai and 6 Others) in the court of IV Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur which revision has been allowed and the matter has been remitted back to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned order is illegal for the reason that the Trial Court after appraisal of evidence on record had considered the application under Section 151 CPC filed by Smt. Jagdei and had recorded a clear finding that the suit had been compromised between the plaintiffs and Smt. Jagdei. According to him such finding of fact could not have been interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction by the revisional court. Sri Tarun Verma learned counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted that no compromise was entered into by Smt. Jagdei and therefore her application to recall the compromise decree was wrongly rejected by the Trial Court and the revisional court has allowed the revision on the ground that Smt. Jagdei had never affixed thumb impression which was identified by a new counsel. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record the Trial Court had rejected the application of Smt. Jagdei for recall of the compromise decree. In the revision the revisional court perused the record and found that the application 66 A-1 whereupon the compromise order was passed by the Trial Court did not bear the thumb impression of Smt. Jagdei where it was identified by a new counsel Udai Pratap Narain claiming to represent Smt. Jagdei. In the revision the revisional court perused the record and found that the application 66 A-1 whereupon the compromise order was passed by the Trial Court did not bear the thumb impression of Smt. Jagdei where it was identified by a new counsel Udai Pratap Narain claiming to represent Smt. Jagdei. The revisional court found that there was no thumb impression of Smt. Jagdei on the back of the application where the identification was made by the counsel alleging to represent her hence there was nothing to identify and there was no thumb impression which was identified by the new counsel. The relevant portion of the finding recorded by the revisional court is quoted here under:- "Primafacie the application 66A-1 bears double thumb marks of Smt. Jagdei on its face. On the back of the compromise the verification clause has been written by the office without the thumb mark of Smt. Jagdei. It may be tested that the (not printed) new counsel Sri Udai Pratap Narain representing Smt. Jagdei revisionist has written on the back of the compromise identity and attested defendant no. 3 Smt. Jagdei but unfortunately there is no thumb mark of Smt. Jagdei which required any identification and attestation by Sri Udai Pratap Narain Advocate. On the face of it, the compromise was not verified according to law by the learned counsel and therefore it deserves to be rejected." "Before the trial court, respondent did not produce Udai Pratap Narain Advocate to identify Smt. Jagdei present in the court and to state that only she had appeared and affixed her thumb mark on 66A-1 and he had identified her thumb marks. The best evidence available to the respondent has been with held and therefore, court was entitled to draw an adverse inference against the respondent." From the aforesaid finding it appears that when Smt. Jagdei did not affix her thumb impression there was no occasion for a new counsel to appear claiming to represent her and attest and identify Smt. Jagdei. Even the counsel who has identified Smt. Jagdei was not produced before the court below and since there was no thumb impression of Smt. Jagdei available in the application where the identification was made clearly the finding recorded by the revisional court cannot be held to be illegal or even beyond jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid circumstances no interference is required in the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid circumstances no interference is required in the impugned order. The suit being of the year 1980 will continue and be decided in accordance with law by the Trial Court as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. _____________