( 1 ) THE matters are coming up for admission today and at the request of both the counsel, the matters are Wing disposed of finally, at the stage of admission. ( 2 ) HEARD, Sri T. Veera Bhadraiah, counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri M. V. Suresh, counsel representing the respondents, in all these matters. These three GR. Ps. , are filed by the revision petitioners, aggrieved by the common order passed by the Principal junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, dated 24-3-2003 in I. A. No. 165} of 2003 in O. S. No. 685 of 1991, I. A. No. 1653 of 1993 in o. S. NO. 687 of 1991 and I. A. No. 1655 of 1993 in O. S. No. 99 of 1992. ( 3 ) AS can be seen from the very nature of the order, the said common order was passed in pursuance of an order of remand made by this Court in C. R. P. Nos. 5084, 5175 and 5170 of 1998. ( 4 ) THE principal contention raised by Sri t. Veera Bhadraiah, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners in all these C. R. Ps. , is that the order of remand was made for a particular purpose and though an elaborate order had been passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, rajahmundry, the real question in controversy, which was expected to be answered in view of the order of remand, had not been adverted to at all and other irrelevant findings alone had been recorded. It will definitely vitiate the said order and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Learned counsel had taken me through the common order passed in the prior batch of C. R. Ps. referred to supra and had contended that the purpose for which the matter was adjourned and why the compromise was not recorded and the reasons in relation thereto, had not been recorded at all, though a lengthy order was passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, rajahmundry. referred to supra and had contended that the purpose for which the matter was adjourned and why the compromise was not recorded and the reasons in relation thereto, had not been recorded at all, though a lengthy order was passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, rajahmundry. Learned counsel also in all fairness, had submitted that the other question relating to fraud in relation to which the remand was made, whether the said question was considered or not by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, rajahmundry, cannot be material but what the learned counsel had stressed upon is that when an order of remand is made by the revisional Court, the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry is bound to answer understanding the scope and ambit of remand order in its true spirit and any order passed without considering the actual aspect of remand, definitely cannot be sustained in law. This is the only short question, which had been canvassed elaborately by the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners. Learned counsel also had pointed out the specific grounds raised in this regard in all the C. R. Ps. ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri M. V. Suresh, learned counsel representing the respondents had pointed out that I. A. No. 1651 of 2003 in o. S. NO. 685 of 1991, LA. No. 1653 of 1993 in o. S. No. 637 of 1991 and I. A. No. 1655 of 1993 in O. S. No. 99 of 1992 not to record compromise were already dismissed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, rajahmundry, as per orders dated 16-11-1998, and as against those orders no revisions were carried and those drders became final and hence, the present C. R. Ps. , questioning the common impugned order, cannot be disturbed in any way. Learned counsel also had drawn my attention that after remand, evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 had been recorded, and the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry had adverted to all the factual aspects and recorded a categorical finding that the element of fraud had not been established at all. Learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the relevant portions of the impugned order where such findings had been recorded. 2 and 3 had been recorded, and the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry had adverted to all the factual aspects and recorded a categorical finding that the element of fraud had not been established at all. Learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the relevant portions of the impugned order where such findings had been recorded. Learned counsel had further drawn my attention to the endorsement made by the presiding officer and the findings recorded by the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry regarding the endorsement made on the docket and had submitted that in any view of the matter, inasmuch as the operative portion of the order in the prior batch of revisions, clearly goes to show that it is not a limited remand but an open remand, On appreciation of the evidence of both P. W. 2 and P. W. 3, inasmuch as clear findings had been recorded in this regard, such findings cannot be disturbed and there is no error in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, and hence, the present C. R. Ps. are liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) HEARD both the counsel at length. ( 7 ) I had perused the common order made by the learned Principal Junior Civil judge, Rajahmundry in I. A. No. 1651 of 2003 in O. S. No. 685 of 1991, I. A. No. 1653 of 1993 in O. S. No. 687 of 1991 and I. A. No. 1655 of 1993 in O. S. No. 99 of 1992. No doubt, it is a very lengthy order. The learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, undoubtedly had taken pains to advert to several of the factual aspects in appreciating the question of involvement of element of fraud or otherwise in the compromise proceedings. It may be appropriate to have a look at the relevant portion of the prior order made in the prior batch of C. R. Ps. referred to supra. "as I can see from the material available on record except the observations made by the court below, under what circumstances the matter was adjourned and the compromise had not been recorded, the parties had not adduced the necessary relevant evidence in this regard. However, when the parties are not interested in finalizing the settlement by way of compromise, always the better course will be to proceed with the matter further. However, when the parties are not interested in finalizing the settlement by way of compromise, always the better course will be to proceed with the matter further. But in the present case, it appears that the parties and the advocates were present and has admitted the terms of compromise and it is not known why the matter had been adjourned and under what circumstances and there is no independent evidence forthcoming in this regard. It is no doubt true that the parties must not suffer because of the mistake of the Court if really such mistake had been committed by the court in not recording the compromise on a particular day. It may be that the parties having entered into the compromise on the matter being adjourned and subsequently also for so many reasons may change their minds on the aspect of compromise. Whatever the reasons may be, I am satisfied that the material available on record in the present case is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion either way. In view of the present facts and circumstances, I feel it just and convenient to remit the matter back to the court below to enable the parties to adduce further evidence on all the aspects which I had discussed supra" ( 8 ) THE main stress of argument of the learned counsel representing the respondents rests on the fact that inasmuch as it is a general order of remand made in the prior batch of C. R. Ps. , and inasmuch as the evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 had been appreciated at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the order of remand was not complied with. At any rate, the said order of remand was complied with in substance. It is really unfortunate that though the learned Principal Junior Civil judge, Rajahmundry had taken pains to record several factual aspects, had not adverted to the core question of remand relating to the aspect which had been specifically referred to supra. No doubt, it was pointed out that a reference was made by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, rajahmundry to the docket, on which the presiding officer had made the endorsement and had made an observation that the parties appeared before the Court and admitted the terms of compromise. No doubt, it was pointed out that a reference was made by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, rajahmundry to the docket, on which the presiding officer had made the endorsement and had made an observation that the parties appeared before the Court and admitted the terms of compromise. It is pertinent to note that the question of element of fraud is not the question of controversy but the question, which had been specifically referred to supra in the prior batch of revisions is the real question in controversy. It is expected to be adverted and in the light of the prior remand order, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, rajahmundry is expected to comply with the said order of remand is its true spirit recording reasons on the specific aspects which had been referred to supra. The general observations made negativing the involvement of any element of fraud by itself cannot be said to be a true compliance of the order of remand made by this Court. No doubt, much stress had been made on the language employed in the proviso to rule 3 of Order 23 C. P. C. It is made clear that the element of fraud is not the question in controversy between the parties at present. ( 9 ) IN my considered opinion, in the light of the prior order of remand, this Court is left with no other option except to set aside the orders made in I. A. No. 1651 of 2003 in o. S. No. 685 of 1991, I. A. No. 1653 of 1993 in o. S. No. 687 of 1991 and I. A. No. 1655 of 1993 in O. S. No. 99 of 1992 and again to remit the matters to the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry to record proper findings, If necessary, after affording opportunity to both the parties again on the real core question, which had been referred to supra specifically. In the light of the findings recorded above, the impugned orders passed in I. A. No. 1651 of 2003 in o. S. No. 685 of 1991, I. A. NO. 1653 of 1993 in o. S. No. 687 of 1991 and I. A. No. 1655 of 1993 in O. S. No. 99 of 1992 are hereby set aside. ( 10 ) THESE C. R. Ps. are allowed, and the matters are remitted back for the purpose indicated above. 1653 of 1993 in o. S. No. 687 of 1991 and I. A. No. 1655 of 1993 in O. S. No. 99 of 1992 are hereby set aside. ( 10 ) THESE C. R. Ps. are allowed, and the matters are remitted back for the purpose indicated above. No order as to costs. ( 11 ) AT this stage a request is made by sri M. V. Suresh, learned counsel representing the respondents that the unfortunate parties are fighting this litigation for sufficiently a long time. In view of the same, it is needless to mention that the learned Principal Junior Civil judge, Rajahmundry is expected to dispose of these matters as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months.