Judgment J. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Triyugi Narain mishra, the Executive Secretary, Children academy, Jaipur has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 21 7. 1994 passed by Shri O. P. Gupta, R. H. J. S, Additional district and Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur by which order the order of the Trial Court dated 8. 4. 1994 has been set-aside. ( 2 ) THE Trial Court vide order dated 8. 4. 1994 had ordered that in regard to the property in question, alleged compromise between the parties dated 20. 11. 1993 had been presented in the Court and to verify the compromise, the Trial Court had ordered the parties to be present in the Court in person. This part of the order that the parties should be present in person to verify the contents of the compromise which had been presented only by the Advocates was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent by filing an appeal, the appeal was dismissed. It was ordered by the Court that in the circumstances the Trial Court was competent to procure the presence of the parties in person. Despite such an order the parties did not appear before the Court and. therefore, a notice was issued to the respondent-defendant, now the petitioner to be present in the Court and to say as to why the suit should not be decreed as per compromise. This order was challenged by the plaintiff, now the respondent, before the Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court vide order dated 21. 7. 1994 had observed that on 20. 11 1993, a written agreement had been produced in the court by the Counsel for the parties wherein it was averred that the present petitioner, the defendant accepts the bona fide need of the plaintiff-respondent and, therefore, the Court was bound to pass a decree in accordance with the compromise. After noticing certain authorities the lower Appellate Court had observed that there was hardly any necessity to procure the presence of the parties in person before passing of the decree and, therefore, the order dated 8. 4. 1994 passed by the Trial Court was modified by accepting the appeal. A direction was given by the lower Appellate Court to the Trial Court to pass a decree within seven days in accordance with the alleged agreement entered into between the parties. 4. 1994 passed by the Trial Court was modified by accepting the appeal. A direction was given by the lower Appellate Court to the Trial Court to pass a decree within seven days in accordance with the alleged agreement entered into between the parties. ( 3 ) THE facts in the case as stated are that the petitioner is a tenant of Plot No. A-29, vidhyalaya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur which was taken on rent by the Central Academy school of which the petitioner was the Secretary. It is stated that the plaintiff-respondent is said to have purchased the said plot from the original owner and had filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner on 6. 9. 1991 in the competent Court at Jaipur in the name and style of Upasana Constructions v. Triyugi Narain Mishra. It is stated that the petitioner is running the school at the place. It is the case of the petitioner in the revision petition that because of his pre-occupations, he ramained out of Jaipur. It is stated that he had engaged Mr. D. P. Chaddha and B. L. Agrawal, Advocates to conduct the present case. It is stated that Ratan Thakral had also signed the Vakalatnama being associate of Mr. D. P. Chaddha, Advocate. The written statement was filed. The ground as stated for eviction was denied. The case was transferred to the Court of A. C. M. No. 6, Jaipur City where it was registered and the next date fixed was 8. 10. 1993 for submission of the documents and settlement of issues and the case was adjourned to 17. 11. 1993. It is the case of the petitioner that he had contested the last gen-1. Appeal No. 1/94, decided on 24. 1. 1994. eral elections which were held in the month of november from Chhillupur Assembly Constituency on BJP ticket. The polling was held on 18. 11. 1993 and re-polling was ordered on several booths which had taken place on 20. 11. 93, counting was done on 28. 11. 1993 and result was declared on 29. 11. 1. 1994. eral elections which were held in the month of november from Chhillupur Assembly Constituency on BJP ticket. The polling was held on 18. 11. 1993 and re-polling was ordered on several booths which had taken place on 20. 11. 93, counting was done on 28. 11. 1993 and result was declared on 29. 11. 1993, it is stated that the petitioner had left Jaipur in the first week of October, 1993 in connection with his election and returned to Jaipur only in the first week of December 1993, after declaration of the result and, therefore, there was no question of any compromise having been submitted on 20. 11. 1993. Ultimately, the suit was decreed against him when he was so informed on 17. 8. 1994 and only then and then he came to know the facts as to how he has been deceived by the interested parties. ( 4 ) WITHOUT going into the merits of the compromise deed, but in the circumstances, the question which arises for determination in the present case is whether the order dated 8. 4. 1993 to the effect that the parties should be present to verify the compromise was illegal order which could be interferred by the lower Appellate Court by the impugned order. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the earlier order dated 20. 11. 1993 wherein the Trial Court had ordered that the parties should be present in the Court was challenged by the present respondents in appeal and the appeal itself was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 24. 1. 1994 by Additional District and Sessions judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Appeal No. 1/94 Upasana Constructions u. Triyugi narain Mishra, As a matter of fact the order dated 8. 4. 1993 was in continuation to the order dated 20. 11. 1993 and thus the original order was the order dated 20. 11. 1993 wherein the Trial Court had ordered the parties to be present in the Court to verify the authenticity of the compromise entered into between the parties. A photo-stat copy of the compromise has been shown to the Court which is placed on record. The deed is dated 20. 11. 1993. It is mentioned in the letter dated 20. 11. 1993 wherein the Trial Court had ordered the parties to be present in the Court to verify the authenticity of the compromise entered into between the parties. A photo-stat copy of the compromise has been shown to the Court which is placed on record. The deed is dated 20. 11. 1993. It is mentioned in the letter dated 20. 11. 1993 which is said to have been signed on a typed letter by Triyugi Narain Mishra to the effect that he has received the compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for the construction he had constructed on the plot in question. It is further mentioned that he has signed the agreement and original agreement has been given to Pradeep Gupta. It is further mentioned that he had given the authority to Anil Sharma. This is only a receipt. Interestingly, nothing has been mentioned in this so-called receipt about the pendency of the suit between the parties nor the receipt or settlement is signed by the plaintiff (I am saying so after seeing the photo-stat copy which is available on this file ). If any compromise which is to be entered into between the parties and if any suit is pending and if during the pendency of the suit the parties want to settle the matter pending the suit, it is essential that the description of the suit should be mentioned in the settlement and both the parties are required to sign the said settlement. In these circumstances, after seeing the so called letter dated 20. 11. 1993, if the Trial court vide order dated 20. 11. 1993 had directed the parties to be present in the Court, in my opinion, no illegality had been committed and even if in pursuance of the order dated 20. 11. 1993 a notice was issued to such persons vide order dated 8. 4. 1994, when order was in continuation of the order dated 20. 11. 1993, no illegality had been committed. Admittedly, the order dated 20. 11. 1993 had not been challenged as no appeal was maintainable as has been held by the lower appellate Court in appeal filed against such an order. The order dated 20. 11. 1993 had become final. If the circumstances so require and if any doubt is created the Courts may compel the signatories of the compromise to be present in the Court. The order dated 20. 11. 1993 had become final. If the circumstances so require and if any doubt is created the Courts may compel the signatories of the compromise to be present in the Court. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances as mentioned above, the order dated 21. 1. 1994 passed by the lower Appellate Court directing the Trial court and modifying the order dated 8. 4. 1994 cannot be sustained in the. eyes of law and needs to be set aside. ( 7 ) THE Courts are duty-bound to see that no fraud is played on any of the parties and specially in the case of eviction where high stakes are involved. If the Court directs in the peculiar circumstances of the case for the parties to be present in the Court for recording their statement or otherwise to verify the fact whether they had signed the documents, in my opinion, the Courts are entitled to act accordingly and no fault can be found in this order. The direction given by the lower Appellate court under order dated 21. 1. 1994 to the effect to pass the decree cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The lower Appellate Court has not exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the order dated 21. 1. 1994 is set-aside and the order of the Trial Court is restored. Petition allowed.