JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The defendants have filed this revision petition under section 115, CPC against the order dated 20.7.1999 by which court below have dismissed their application dated 30.8.1997. In the court below, defendants submitted above application under Order 23, Rule 3 , CPC with the averments that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties with regard suit for eviction & recovery of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,70,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff. Out of above amount, Rs. 60,000/- has been paid to Smt. Ganeshi Devi mother of the plaintiff, at the time of purchasing the stamp papers, on which compromise was written. Rupees 20,000/- were paid to the plaintiff himself on 2nd July, 1997, dated on which compromise was executed. The remaining amount of Rs. 80,000/- was to be paid within 3 days after execution of the compromise. It is further stated in the application that remaining amount of Rs. 80,000/- has been paid to Babu Lal and Ganeshi Devi, therefore, on the basis of above compromise, the civil suit pending between the parties be disposed of. 3. Above application of the defendants was contested by the plaintiff, denying execution of any compromise and receipt of money. 4. After -hearing both the parties, learned trial court by the impugned order has rejected the application and proceeded with trial of the civil suit pending between them. 5. Submissions of the learned counsel of petitioner-defendants are that whether compromise dated 2.7.1997 has been arrived at or not; was the bone of contention between the parties and the trial court should have given opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter should have decided the same, however, court below has adopted a different course and simply upon oral arguments of the parties, decided the application in lackastical manner. On the other hand, learned counsel for non-petitioner herein has supported the impugned order. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The trial court was to decide whether a compromise took place or not, which was the question of fact, to be decided only after recording evidence of the parties. On the other hand, learned counsel for non-petitioner herein has supported the impugned order. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The trial court was to decide whether a compromise took place or not, which was the question of fact, to be decided only after recording evidence of the parties. When copy of the compromise has been filed along with the application under Order 23, Rule 3 , CPC by defendants, even if same was denied by the plaintiff, court below should have reached a conclusion after giving an opportunity to lead evidence to both the parties. A proviso has been added, by Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 with effect from 1.2.1977, to rule 3 of Order 23, CPC, to the effect that when it is alleged by one party and denied by other, that an adjustment and satisfaction has been arrived at, the court shall decide the question forthwith. In the matter at hand, though trial court decided the question at the first instance but with regard to genuineness of the compromise, parties were not given an opportunity to lead their evidence by affidavits or otherwise. In such a situation, impugned order is an abuse of the process of court, causing miscarriage of justice. Same is liable to be set aside. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted; impugned, order is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the trial court, to decide the application dated 30th August, 1997, after giving an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contention to both the parties.Revision Allowed-Impugned Order Set Aside-Matter Remanded For Decision of Application For Compromise. *******