B. N. CHATURVEDI, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by an order dated 11. 7. 2001 of the learned Additional district Judge dismissing the appellants first appeal against ex parte decree dated 6. 3. 2000 in a suit for recovery of possession filed by the respondent, the appellants have come up in second appeal. ( 2 ) VIDE order dated 22. 11. 2005, while admitting the appeal, following substantial question of law was formulated: ?whether the trial court or the appellate court could shut out the three compromise documents entered into between the parties during or about the period when specifically adjournments for compromise were given and whether abruptly proceeding ex parte against defendant has resulted in decision without referring to material evidence?? ( 3 ) I have heard arguments on either side. ( 4 ) IT is admitted on behalf of the appellants that no compromise between the parties was ever filed before the trial court. The argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that three compromise documents executed by the parties have been filed in different proceedings before certain other courts. However, the same could not be filed before the trial court in the present case. Clearly, unless the parties made a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 cpc and the compromise, if any arrived at between the parties was recorded before the trial court, the trial court was not in a position to take into account the compromise, if any, filed by the appellants in proceedings before some other courts, to decide the suit on the basis of such a compromise. Merely because adjournments had been sought by the parties from time to time to reach a compromise would be meaningless unless a compromise had actually been arrived at and reported to the trial court by making an appropriate application under Order xxiii Rule 3 CPC and placing the compromise on record. ( 5 ) IT is noticed that after putting in appearance, though the appellant had filed his written statement but he, subsequently, omitted to appear on 21st of November, 1996 when he was proceeded ex parte. He applied for setting aside the ex parte order and the application in that regard was allowed on 22nd of october, 1997 and the ex parte order dated 21. 11. 1996 was set aside. He applied for setting aside the ex parte order and the application in that regard was allowed on 22nd of october, 1997 and the ex parte order dated 21. 11. 1996 was set aside. After appearing in the case on some of the dates, the appellant once more failed to appear before the learned trial court on 19th of February, 1999 and was, thus, again proceeded ex parte. This time the application seeking setting aside of the ex parte order was declined on 11th of November, 1999, against which the appellant filed a civil revision before this Court but the same was also dismissed and, eventually, an ex parte decree dated 6. 3. 2000 came to be passed against him. ( 6 ) AFTER seeking adjournments to arrive at a compromise, on appellant failing to appear before the Court to report and place on record the compromise, if any, arrived at between the parties, the trial court had no option but to proceed ex parte against the appellant and keeping in view that the appellant had earlier been proceeded ex parte on 21st of November, 1996 also, which was, of course, set aside on an application in that regard on 22nd of October, 1997, it cannot be held that he was abruptly proceeded ex parte on 19th of February, 1999. Since no compromise had ever been brought on record, the trial court or the first appellate court could not be expected to have taken the same into account while deciding the suit or the first appeal. It is not a case where the courts below failed to take into account, while deciding the matter, the compromise, claimed by the appellant to have been arrived at between the parties, in spite of the same being available on record. ( 7 ) IN the facts and circumstances, the question of law as framed is answered in the negative and finding no reason to interfere with the decree and order of the courts below the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs ( 8 ) LCR be sent back. .