Short Note Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2nd March, 2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 90-A91 of First Additional Judge to district Judge. Gwalior at Dabra, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed this revision petition on the ground that before entertaining an application for rejection of compromise between the parties, an enquiry as envisaged under Rule 3 Order 23, CPC is mandatory. It is not disputed that parties in the case filed a compromise petition on 18.12.1992 and the statements of both the parties were recorded on the same day wherein they accepted the compromise, However, after about a month on 16.12.1992. defendant No.3 respondent Arun Kumar filed an application resiling the compromise on the ground that he was pressurized to enter into the compromise. The learned trial Court, after giving plaintiff an opportunity of hearing came to the conclusion by the impugned order that since defendant-respondent No.3 was proceeded ex parte with the allegation that signatures were obtained by mi-representing that an application to set aside is to be filed, seems to be probable. The learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted that Arun Kumar is not an illiterate person as he is a businessman and secondly the trial Court was totally misled on this ground because there was no reason to disbelieve his statement given on oath before the Court wherein he had supported the compromise. The Apex Court in case of Banwari Lal v. Chanda Devi as reported in ( AIR 1993 SC 1139 ) has held that a party challenging a compromise can file a petition under proviso to R.3 of O.23, or an appeal under S. 96(1) of the Code, in which he can now question the validity of the compromise in view of R.1A of Order 43 of the Code. If the agreement or the compromise itself is fraudulent then it shall be deemed to be void within the meaning of the explanation to the proviso to R. 3 and as such not lawful. When the amending Act introduces a proviso along with an explanation to Rule 3 of O.23 saying that where it is alleged by one party and denied by other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at. When the amending Act introduces a proviso along with an explanation to Rule 3 of O.23 saying that where it is alleged by one party and denied by other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at. "the Court shall decide the question", the Court before which a petition of compromise is filed and which has recorded such compromise, has to decide the question whether an adjustment or satisfaction had been arrived at on basis of any lawful agreement. To make the enquiry in respect of validity of the agreement or the compromise more comprehensive, the explanation to the proviso says that an agreement or compromise 'which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act' shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of the said Rule. From the bare reading of the proviso under Rule 3 Order 23 of the CPC, it can very well be gathered that where a compromise petition is challenged or denied, an enquiry about its validity or lawfulness is a must. The learned trial Court has totally ignored this mandatory provision before arriving at a conclusion. In such a situation, the finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained. Consequently, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the learned trial Court shall afford an opportunity of leading evidence to the parties and after making an enquiry, pass an appropriate order. Parties are directed to remain present before the trial Court on 6th August, 2001.