JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Though the learned counsel for the appellant tried to convince me that the decree passed by the trial Court was the result of duress etc. yet this Court is not convinced with the argument. The first appellate Court has rightly stated that the decree by the trial Court was a consent decree and in these circumstances, the appeal was not maintainable. Otherwise also, the remedy available to the present appellant was either to file a regular suit or to file a review application challenging the alleged consent decree, as observed by the High Court in 1993 (Suppl) Civil Court Cases 308 Kishan Chand v. Rajinder Kaur, where in para No. 7 of the judgment was held as under :- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I find no merit in the civil revision. It is not disputed before me that the suit was decided on 6.9.1990 in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner who made a statement in the Court. Moreover, Swaran Singh, Sukhwinder Singh along with their counsel Shri K.K. Garg, Advocate, were present in the Court and their statements were also recorded. In this view of the matter, no appeal was maintainable because consent decree was passed on the basis of the statements made by the respondents as well as counsel for the petitioner and, therefore, proper method of questioning the consent decree was either by way of review or by regular suit and not by way of appeal. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that he never signed a compromise or gave any authority to his counsel to enter into compromise, is of no consequence in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2234 (Byram Pestonji Garwala v. Union Bank of India) wherein provisions of Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure came into consideration and it was held as under :- "The words "in writing and signed by the parties" inserted in Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 necessarily mean and include duly authorised representative and counsel. Thus compromise in writing and signed by counsel representing the parties, but not signed by the parties in person, is valid and binding on the parties and is executable even if the compromise relates to matter concerning the parties, but extending beyond the subject matter of the suit. A judgment by consent is intended to stop litigation between the parties just as much as a judgment resulting from a decision of the Court at the end of a long drawn out fight. A compromise decree creates an estoppel by judgment". In this view of the matter, the appeal is hereby disposed of with the observation that it will always be open to the appellant either to file a regular suit or he may file a review application, if so permissible according to law. Order accordingly.