HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6512 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Shikhar Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shishir Chandra, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 17.08.2022, passed by learned Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sitapur in Old Civil Misc. Case No.10/2019 whereby an application filed by the opposite party for preparation of a final decree in pursuance of preliminary decree passed passed in Appeal No.49 of 2016 has been allowed. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order by filing Civil Revision No.68 of 2022 which has been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 13.12.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sitapur and the petitioner has challenged the validity of the revisional order as well. 3. The proceedings arose out of a suit for partition filed by the opposite party who is brother of the petitioner. The suit was dismissed and the opposite party filed appeal. During pendency of appeal, the parties entered into a settlement agreeing that both of them shall get half of the property. 4. The opposite party has filed an application for preparation of the final decree in furtherance of the preliminary decree passed on the basis of compromise between the parties. The petitioner has filed objection against the application for preparation of final decree stating that all the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shishir Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ramesh Chandra Sharma .....Petitioner(s) Gopal Krishna Sharma .....Respondent(s) descendants of late Medi Lal were not parties to the compromise and that the plaintiff is seeking a wrong share in the property. The petitioner's objections were rejected by the trial court holding that the appeal has been decided on the basis of compromise entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant and it is recorded therein that the opposite parties no.2 to 4 have relinquished their shares and have stated that the property be divided between the plaintiff and the defendant in equal portion. The compromise decree has not been challenged either by filing appeal or by filing suit for cancellation of decree. In these circumstances the objection is not maintainable. 5. The revisional court has also affirmed the order passed by learned trial court. 6. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before this court that all the share holders of the property were not parties to the suit. 7. This plea has already been dealt with by the trial court and by the revisional court holding that the petitioner was a party to the compromise which has formed the basis of passing a decree, the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the decree by filing an appeal and no affected person has chose to seek cancellation of the compromise decree on any ground whatsoever. 8. In these circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly proceeded to order preparation of a final decree and has not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned order. The revisional court also has not committed any error in affirming the trial court's order. 9. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. November 12, 2025 Ram. A227 No. 6512 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench