JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1995 passed by learned first appellate Court, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1981 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Merta in original suit No. 162/73. 2. After hearing learned counsel for appellant on 27.1.1997, notices were issued to defendant-respondents to show cause as to why the instant appeal should not be finally disposed of at admission stage, looking into the compromise entered into between the parties. 3. In compliance of the aforesaid order notices. were issued which are duly served upon the respondents and they have engaged Mr. S.D. Sandoo as their counsel to do pairvi on their behalf. 4. List is revised. Neither defendant-respondents nor their counsel is present therefore the Court has no alternative except to proceed ex-parte against them as envisaged under sub-rule (2) of R. 17 of O. 41 of CPC. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Mr. K.C. Samdariya. 6. Perused the judgment given by learned first appellate Court as well as record of both the Courts below. 7. Mr. Samdariya, while inviting my attention towards the compromise date 10.9.1990, entered into between the parties, submitted that the aforesaid compromise was verified on the same day by the Court. According to Mr. Samdariya, once the compromise was entered into between the parties which was duly verified by first appellate Court on 10.9.1990 then it was duty of the first appellate Court to pass judgment and decree in terms of compromise instead of dismissing the appeal on merits. 8. There is substance in the aforesaid arguments of Mr. Samdariya. It is to be imbibed in this regard that whenever and wherever a compromise is entered into between the parties then the Court has no option except to pass a decree in terms of it. However, the terms of compromise can be challenged on two grounds. Firstly on the ground of fraud between the parties and secondly on the ground of fraud played upon the Court. However, the terms of compromise can be challenged on two grounds. Firstly on the ground of fraud between the parties and secondly on the ground of fraud played upon the Court. On former ground the Court before whom compromise is filed has no jurisdiction to entertain such objection to the compromise and aggrieved party has legal remedy to get the compromise set aside by filing a civil suit whereas on second ground the Court itself can examine the ground of fraud alleged to have been played upon it and after recording positive finding to the effect it can set aside the compromise and may proceed to decide the suit or appeal on merits as the case may be. 9. It is held that except on the aforesaid two grounds a compromise entered into between the parties cannot be ignored by a Court where it is filed and verified. Here in the present case no circumstance has been brought to my notice as to how, instead of passing a decree in terms of compromise dated 10.9.1990 the learned first appellate Court has proceeded to decide the appeal on merits by its judgment and decree dated 29.7.1995 under appeal. 10. It is further held that in the present case the learned first appellate Court has committed substantial error of law and procedure in deciding the appeal on merits.As a result of aforementioned discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1995 is set aside. The case is remanded back to learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Merta City to decide the lis between the parties in terms of compromise dated 10.9.1990 in the light of observation made in the body of this judgment. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.Appeal allowed. *******