Judgment The Chief Justice.-In this application to record the compromise alleged to have been entered into by the contending parties, the respondent filed a counter-affidavit admitting that she was a party to the agreement and that she affixed her thumb impresion to it; but alleging that the compromise was brought about by fraud and coercion by the guardian of the minor petitioner, who is himself the first petitioner. It has been held that under Order 23, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure a compromise cannot be attacked by allegations that it is a voidable compromise brought about by fraud, undue influence and duress. Provided that compromise is lawful, that is, not contrary to law, the Court is obliged to record it. The mere fact that it may be voidable is no reason for a Court refusing to record it. Vide Surappa Raju v. Venkataratnam1, Hussain Tar Beg v. Radhakishan2. In this case all that is alleged by the respondent is that the compromise is voidable. It is not suggested that any term of the compromise is unlawful. We therefore record the compromise and direct a decree to be passed in terms thereof. V.S. ----- Petition ordered.