ORDER N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 1-4-2005 passed by IIIrd Civil Judge Class II, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 152/97, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code dated 2-8-1998 has been dismissed, the present revision has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No. 1 are the real brothers. Suit was filed by the respondent No. 1, against the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein it was prayed that it be declared that respondent No. 1 is the owner of the suit property and entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue record and it was further prayed that petitioner be restrained to interfere in the occupation of the suit property. Vide order dated 17-11-1997 the application for temporary injunction was dismissed against which miscellaneous appeal was filed which was numbered as 67/97 and was disposed of by 1st ADJ, Mandsaur vide order dated 13-5-1998, whereby the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was restrained to interfere in the possession of the respondent No. 1. Immediately thereafter the application was filed by the petitioner on 2-8-1998, under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, wherein it was alleged that compromise has taken place between the parties on 3-7-1998 before Anjuman Islam Committee. Vide reply dated 1-12-2000 it was alleged that no compromise has taken place and the petitioner has prepared the forged document of compromise. Petitioner filed photo-stat copy of the alleged compromise dated 3-7-1998 of which the script is in Urdu. By the impugned order the learned Court below dismissed the application holding that since no compromise has taken place before the Court, therefore, the effect of the compromise which has taken place out of the Court shall be considered at the latter stage, and on the basis of the alleged compromise the suit cannot be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel submits that learned Court below committed error in dismissing the application. Reliance was placed on the proviso of Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code which reads as under:- 3. Compromise of Suit. 3. Learned counsel submits that learned Court below committed error in dismissing the application. Reliance was placed on the proviso of Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code which 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 decide 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. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Civil Procedure (Amendment Act), 1976 the proviso has been added in Rule 3 of the Order 23 with effect from 1-2-1977 and in view of that where the compromise is alleged by one party and denied by the other then the Court has to decide. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter Ajad Singh @ Ajad v. Chatra and Others, JT 2005(2) SC 417, wherein the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over suit property was decreed by the Court below on 5-10-1985 and during pendency of appeal a compromise took place on 14-10-1985 in the police station which was disputed by one of the party. However, learned appellate Court reversed the decree by placing the reliance on compromise and High Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Appellate Court. In the circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, the suit could not have been disposed of except by recording the compromise and that too by following the procedure, and recording the satisfaction, contemplated by Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, the suit could not have been disposed of except by recording the compromise and that too by following the procedure, and recording the satisfaction, contemplated by Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code. Secondly, the first appellate Court was not justified in observing that the plaintiff had not raised necessary pleadings either in the plaint or in the replication disputing the factum and legality of the compromise. From a perusal of the written statement, we find that necessary pleadings satisfying the requirement of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code have not been raised in the written statement. The written statement makes only a bald reference to the said compromise dated 14-10-1985. The plaintiff can be safely assumed to have denied all the averments made in the written statement. Also we find from the judgment dated 5-10-1985 of the trial Court that no specific issue was framed on the pleading raised by the defendant regarding the said compromise dated 14-10-1985. The appellate Court ought to have taken note of the fact that the said compromise was recorded in the police station and during the pendency of the suit. Thirdly, the first appellate Court ought to have been conscious of the fact that the said compromise is on a plain piece of paper, and so, whether such document was required to be stamped or registered or not? Be that as it may, in our opinion, the very fact that the Courts below have overlooked the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code is sufficient to vitiate the judgment and the matter need to be remanded for consideration afresh. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal was decided by the Court below relying on the compromise which took place when the appeal was pending. In spite of, the same was denied by one of the party. 5. In the present case, the application is filed by the petitioner on 2-8-1998 alleging that the compromise has taken place before the Anjuman Islam Committee on 3-7-1998. This application is not signed by the petitioner Babu Khan. No affidavit has been filed in support of the application. The factum of compromise has specifically denied by the respondent, who was plaintiff before the Court below on 4-12-2000. This application is not signed by the petitioner Babu Khan. No affidavit has been filed in support of the application. The factum of compromise has specifically denied by the respondent, who was plaintiff before the Court below on 4-12-2000. Thereafter, again an application is filed by the petitioner on 21-3-2005 i.e. after more than seven years to hold the enquiry as per proviso of Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Court below has held that even if some compromise has taken place then that will be taken into consideration at the latter stage of case, but there is no reason to dismiss the suit. In the present case, the compromise which has been alleged to have been taken place before Anjuman Islam Committee is in Urdu. No translated copy of the same is on record. In the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order. 7. The suit is pending since 3rd July, 1997. In the circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of with a short direction that the learned Court below shall also frame issue to the effect that whether compromise has taken place between the parties regarding the suit property on 3-7-1998 before Anjuman Islam Committee and shall dispose of the suit at the earliest, while deciding the suit the learned Court shall first decide the issue relating to compromise and if the issues are decided against the petitioner then other issue shall be decided by the Court below. With the aforesaid observations, revision petition stands disposed of.