JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J:(Oral) This is an application seeking recalling of the order dated January 20,2006, passed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 3565 of 2001. 2. The main ground contended in the application is that the compromise entered into between the parties, is not lawful, and thus, the compromise recorded by this Court by passing the impugned order needs to be set aside and the lis revived. 3. With a view to prove that the compromise entered was not lawful, fraud is alleged, Para 9 of the application contains the allegations of fraud. What has been stated in the aforesaid para is noticed herein:- “That in the present case the respondent has totally resiled from the oral compromise entered into between the parties and has constrained the appellant/applicant to approach this Hon’ble Court again for getting his appeal revived. The appellant/applicant has been fraudulently made to suffer the statement before this Hon’ble Court on 20.1.2006. A great injustice would be done if this Hon’ble Court does not revive the appeal filed by the appellant/applicant which was got dismissed as withdawn as the parties had compromised to its original number”. 4. It is useful to take note of the order passed by this Court, which is sought to be recalled and the same is reproduced below:- “Learned counsel for the parties jointly state that R.S.A. No. 3949 of 2001 is also between the same parties and as such, since the matter in the present two appeals has been compromised, therefore, the aforesaid appeal be also disposed of along-with the present appeal. Ram Kishan-appellant is present in person. He states that in view of the settlement between the parties, the present appeal be dismissed as withdraw. He further states that the suit filed by him may also be dismissed as withdrawn. Shri R.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent- Hari Ram has no objection if the prayer of the appellant in the present case, is allowed. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. and suit filed by Ram Kishan is also dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the fact that the suit filed by the appellant-Ram Kishan has been dismissed as withdrawn, the R.S.A.No. 3949 of 2001, has been rendered infructuous and is also disposed of as such. Dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. and suit filed by Ram Kishan is also dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the fact that the suit filed by the appellant-Ram Kishan has been dismissed as withdrawn, the R.S.A.No. 3949 of 2001, has been rendered infructuous and is also disposed of as such. Dismissed as withdrawn. Ram Kishan further states that he accepts the Will dated July 16, 1984, executed by Paliya alias Richpal in favour of Hari Ram as correct”. From the aforesaid order, it is evident that Ram Kishan one of the appellants in R.S.A. No.3565 of 2001, appeared before this Court and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal on the basis of some compromise allegedly entered into between the parties outside the Court. Ram Kishan also sought withdrawal of the suit filed by him,where from R.S.A. No. 3565 of 2001 had arisen. Simultaneously, another Regular Second Appeal No. 3949 of 2001 filed by Hari Ram, who is respondent in R.S.A. No. 3565 of 2001 was also disposed of as infructuous. Apart from that, Ram Kishan also himself made admission that he accepts the Will dated July 16,1984. This statement of Ram Kishan was also taken on record by the Court. The questions that arise are (i) whether order dated January 20,2006,is an order in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. and (ii) whether alleged fraud is committed by the respondents with the applicant in Court proceedings persuading the Court to pass the order. 5. From the plain reading of the order dated January 20,2006, it is evident that this Court has not recorded any compromise between the parties. As a matter of fact, no compromise was made in the Court written or verbal. The Court only recorded the submissions of learned counsel for the parties present and prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal as also the suit. In my considered opinion, this cannot be termed or construed an order of recording a compromise in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. It is a simple order under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C where a party seeks to withdraw suit or abandon claim unconditionally reserving any right or even seeking liberty to approach the Court again. It also does not fall within the purview of sub rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order 23. It also does not fall within the purview of sub rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order 23. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant for recall of the order on the ground that agreement entered between the parties was not lawful, invoking jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C read with Section 151 of C.P.C., is not sustainable. Learned counsel has also referred to the case of Banwari Lal v. Smt. Chando Devi (Through-LR) 1993 (3)R.C.R. 685, where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that where the compromise recorded is unlawful and is sought to be set aside on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud, the only course available is to move the same Court, who recorded the compromise. The Court further held that no separate suit lies in view of the statutory bar created by Order 23 Rule 3-A of C.P.C, nor an appeal is maintainable in view of bar created under Section 96 Sub Section 3 thereof. Similar is the view in a later case reported as Amteshwar Anand v. Virender Mohan Singh and others 2005 (4) R.C.R., 485. In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Order 23 rule 3, casts an obligation on the Court to be satisfied that a suit has been adjusted wholly, or in part by a lawful agreement or a compromise in writing signed by the parties. The very wording of Rule 3 of Order 23 requires that there should a lawful agreement reduced into writing and signed by the parties to enable the Court to record compromise and pass consequential decree. It is the admitted case of the applicant that no compromise in writing was ever created or at least not presented before this Court persuading this Court to record a compromise and pass a decree. Since this Court never recorded any compromise, and no decree has been passed, it is simpliciter allowing the plaintiff/applicant to withdraw the lis unconditionally. It is not an order under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C., which can be recalled on the alleged allegations of fraud. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in Gopal Lal v. Babu Lal and Ors. It is not an order under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C., which can be recalled on the alleged allegations of fraud. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in Gopal Lal v. Babu Lal and Ors. 2004 (2) Civil Court Cases 462 (Rajasthan),wherein it has been held that even in a compromise decree, which is sought to be challenged on the basis of fraud, the only remedy available to a person is to approach the same Court, which passed the decree and no separate suit is maintainable in view of bar created by Rule 3-A of Order 23 of C.P.C. 6. In view of my aforesaid observations, there being no decree by this Court on compromise, the present application is not maintainable. However, the applicant is at liberty to seek any other remedy available under law. The application is dismissed. ——————————————