JUDGMENT 1. - This civil review petition has been preferred seeking review of the judgment dated 27.2.1997 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 23/87. 2. Plaintiff Babulal (since deceased) who is now being represented by Smt. Dhanni Bai, instituted civil suit for declaring sale deed dated 26.10.42 as in S.B. Civil 2nd Appeal No.23/87. null and void. The sale deed was executed by Smt. Gyarsi w/o Nanagram Meena. The relief for permanent injunction and mesne profit @ र 1000/- per month was also claimed in the suit. According to the plaintiff, the sale deed was without any consideration and so the same was nullity and not enforceable in law. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants who are the present review petitioners. However, after trial, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court (Munsif Jaipur City (East) by judgment and decree dated 10.8.81. The learned trial court totally disbelieved the case as put forward by Babulal (plaintiff) who had claimed himself to be son of Ramdev. In appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and by its judgment dated 28.1.87 decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was born 31.7.1948 after three months of the death of Ramdev and at the time of his death, the plaintiff's mother Smt. Bhagwati was pregnant and so he was the son of Ramdev and that the sale deed executed by Smt. Gyarsi Devi, was of no consequence as she had no right to sell the property in dispute and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the property in dispute. Against the aforesaid decree, the defendants preferred second appeal No. 23/87, which was dismissed with costs after hearing at length the learned counsel for the parties by this Court vide its judgment dated 27.2.97, review of which is sought in this petition. Against the aforesaid decree, the defendants preferred second appeal No. 23/87, which was dismissed with costs after hearing at length the learned counsel for the parties by this Court vide its judgment dated 27.2.97, review of which is sought in this petition. However, before parting with its judgment, this Court observed as under : "Before parting with this appeal, as prayed by Shri Agarwal, it is noticed that vide order dated 7.7.87, read with the order dated 25.8.88, this Court had held that in case, this appeal failed, the appellants would pay to the respondents a sum of र 1,000/- per month, by way of mesne profits and that if they failed to do so, the payment would be made by the surety, as the stay order was passed on furnishing solvent security. The respondents are thus entitled to receive from the appellants/their surety, the amounts of mesne profits at the rate of र 1,000/- per month from the relevant date till the date that the possession of the property in dispute is handed over to the respondents." 4. Consequently this review petition has been filed on 29.3.1997 with large number of defects which were removed by the learned counsel on 18.11.97. Thereafter this petition came up for admission on 3.12.97 but adjournment was sought and then he case came up for admission on 28.4.1998 when this Court issued show cause notice to the respondents. 5. Notices were given on requisition as Dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioners for service on the respondents. Though Vakalatnama on behalf of Dhanni Bai and Bharat Kumar (respondent No.1/1 and 1/2) was filed by Shri Sanjay Joshi but the notices given to the respondents after its due service have not been produced till date. Thereafter the case was adjourned time and again till 9.12.1998 when the office reported that the notices are awaited. Thereafter, the case was listed before the Court on 14.12.1998 when none appeared on behalf of petitioners and review petition was dismissed in default. On restoration application, this review petition has been ordered to be restored to its original number vide order dated 28.3.2000. However, this review petition is still incomplete on account of the fact that notices given for getting served on all the respondents except No.1/1 and 1/2 have (sic not ?) been filed after service. On restoration application, this review petition has been ordered to be restored to its original number vide order dated 28.3.2000. However, this review petition is still incomplete on account of the fact that notices given for getting served on all the respondents except No.1/1 and 1/2 have (sic not ?) been filed after service. Respondent No. 1/3 Pappu though minor and No.1/4 Smt. Bhagwati w/o Ramdev are neither served nor represented by any counsel as no Vakalatnama on their behalf has been filed nor notices given to the learned counsel for the petitioners have been filed after due service on them. About two years have lapsed after taking notices for service on the respondent No.1/3 and 1/4 by the learned counsel for the petitioners with no effective steps having been taken by him to get the service effected on unserved respondents till date. Therefore, this review petition deserves to be dismissed for non-prosecution as well. 6. At the outset, Shri Madhav Mitra the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the parties to the appeal have arrived at a compromise by way of amicable settlement as per terms of the compromise recorded in the form of deed of release/surrender. A xerox copy of deed of release/surrender/compromise alleged to have been executed on 1.9.97 by releasers namely Smt. Dhanni Bai wd/o Babulal, Bharat and Pappu minor sons of Babulal, all residents of Kazipura Ujjain (MP) and the releasees namely Kalyan, Lalaram and Smt. Nathi Bai, sons and daughter of Late Surajmal, all residents of Jamdoli Tehsil and district Jaipur, has been filed as Annexure 1 aiongwith application filed by Shri Mathav Mitra on 13.10.97. 7. Shri Sanjay Joshi learned counsel for the respondent No.1/1 and 1/2 did not object and controvert the contention on behalf of the review petitions as to the alleged compromise (Ann.1). 8. The only grievance urged at the bar is that in view of the afore-alleged compromise having been arrived at between the parties to the second appeal in respect of the property which was subject matter of the original suit, this review petition be allowed and after taking the compromise on record, the original suit be dismissed in the light of that compromise. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and considered their contentions and also examined the afore-alleged compromise-deed. 10. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and considered their contentions and also examined the afore-alleged compromise-deed. 10. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties and to appreciate the same in their true perspective as regards permission to record compromise arrived at subsequent to the disposal of the aforesaid second appeal, I would like to briefly advert to the provisions contained in Rule 3 of Order 23, Civil Procedure Code and Section 141, Civil Procedure Code. 11. Rule 3, Order 23, Civil Procedure Code deals with the,procedure relating to the compromise of suit. Rule 3 reads as under: "3. Compromise of suit-Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject matter of the suit: Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decided the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment. Explanation.-An agreement or compromise which is void or shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule." 12. Section-141 Civil Procedure Code provides that the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. Though there is no separate procedure for recording compromise in appeal, but the legislature in its wisdom as per objects and reasons for inserting aforesaid provisions by virtue of the Amendment in the C.P.C. is to safeguard interest of those parties who wish or intend to compromise in the pending suits or appeal as well. Though there is no separate procedure for recording compromise in appeal, but the legislature in its wisdom as per objects and reasons for inserting aforesaid provisions by virtue of the Amendment in the C.P.C. is to safeguard interest of those parties who wish or intend to compromise in the pending suits or appeal as well. Thus, the suit or the appeal has to be pending before the court when permission to record compromise may be accorded. If it is not so, then even after the decision of suit or appeal on merits by the Court, the parties may at any stage with a view to frustrate the judgment of the Court in a suit of appeal, may move for the compromise with the sole malafide object to defeat the decision arrived of on merits, which, in my considered opinion cannot and should not be permitted to be done. It was a different matter if during pendency of aforesaid Second Appeal, the parties would have moved an application for permission to record compromise narrating exceptional circumstances and the court at its discretion could have permitted the parties to record compromise and disposed of the matter in terms of the compromise by taking the same on the record. 13. In the instant case, the parties having not done so during pendency of the appeal have now sought to do the same by way of this review petition, but it cannot be allowed as it would be beyond the scope and powers as also jurisdiction of this court in review petition. No suit or appeal is pending or in existence and which already stands decided. Consequently it is not appropriate for this Court to entertain the review petition after the decision of the aforesaid second appeal, which was dismissed after giving detailed hearing to the learned counsel for the parties on 27.2.97. The question raised before this Court is not at all germane to the controversy relevant for\adjudication in this review petition. 14. Even under Rule 3 of Order 23 Civil Procedure Code, the parties have to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties. 14. Even under Rule 3 of Order 23 Civil Procedure Code, the parties have to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties. As per explanation to Rule 3, an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this Rule. Thus, only upon satisfaction of the Court that the agreement or compromise is lawful, the Court shall order such compromise or its satisfaction to be recorded and thereafter pass a decree in accordance therewith. 15. The basis of relief in this review petition sought for is Annexure-2 to the application moved on 13.10.97 but it is merely a xerox copy of the deed of release/surrender/compromise alleged to have been executed by the afore named parties. Ann. 1 being xerox copy is not sufficient to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by way of a lawful compromise. Secondly Ann.1 is not a registered document nor has been executed before any court of law nor the parties have appeared and executed the deed of compromise before this Court. Moreover, respondent No. 1/4 Sint. Bhagwati w/o Govindram though named as releasers but in the alleged compromise, there is no signature or thumb impression put by her. Hence even its authenticity is highly doubtful and open to question. 16. The application dated 13.10.97 has also been filed only by the petitioners and it is not a joint application of both the parties to the alleged compromise. 17. Thus, in my considered view, the facts & circumstances of the case brought on the basis of the alleged compromise deed do not attract provisions contained in Rule 3 of Order 23, Civil Procedure Code, and, therefore, the alleged compromise cannot be allowed to be taken on record in this review petition, which, itself, is not maintainable for the reasons stated herein below. 18. It is trite law that the scope of review is very limited as per the requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 18. It is trite law that the scope of review is very limited as per the requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Review of judgments can be allowed only on three grounds, namely: (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made, or (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or (iii) for any other sufficient reason (which has been interpreted to be analogous to the other reasons specified above). The effects of allowing a review petition by way of alleged compromise would tantamount to nullifying a lawful judgment and decree passed by this Court on merits which cannot be permitted. 19. In the instant case, in my considered view, none of the grounds are established by the petitioners to review the judgment of this Court passed in aforesaid second appeal, inasmuch as the ground of compromise does not cover or attract any of the provisions contained in Section 114 or Order 47 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, and moreover despite the notices having been given as Dasti for service on the respondent No. 1/3 & 1/4, the same have not been returned by the learned counsel for the petitioners after due service on them till date. On this ground also this petition deserves to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 20. As a result of the above discussion, this review petition is devoid of any merit and substance. Accordingly this review petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Review Petition Dismissed *******