Judgment :- Patil, J. Order dated 31.5.2008 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.dn), Bangalore Rural District. Bangalore on IA-8 filed in O.S. 256/1995 is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff before the Court below. He filed IA-8 under Order 23 Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying the Court below to record the terms and conditions of the agreement dt. 4.5.1997 entered into by the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant settling the dispute and to pass a decree accordingly. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, plaintiff contended that as the contest was between himself and 3rd defendant and as both of them had settled the dispute by entering into an agreement on 4.5.1997, the compromise may be recorded and the Suit may be disposed of in terms thereof. This petition was filed on 19.12.1998. The 3rd defendant filed objections denying such an agreement and compromise. 3. The Court below has passed the impugned order rejecting the petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC holding that the compromise or agreement has to be spelt out in the petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC only and not by way of a separate document like Ex.P I . It has further held that the compromise must have been arrived at before the Court itself and not outside. The Court below has further observed that once a Suit is filed, no agreement or settlement could be reached between the parties except by way of filing a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC as it amounts to sub-judice and the parties are not expected to create any kind of document on their own during the pendency of the dispute. Such arrangement or settlement has to be done only before the Court by invoking the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and not outside the Court, is the view expressed by the Court below. It has further held that if the matter is settled or compromised privately between the parties themselves, they can get the Suit withdrawn or dismissed as settled out of Court and petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, in such circumstances, will not lie. 4. It has further held that if the matter is settled or compromised privately between the parties themselves, they can get the Suit withdrawn or dismissed as settled out of Court and petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, in such circumstances, will not lie. 4. Learned Senior counsel Sri.Vijayashankar, appearing for the petitioner very strongly contends that the reasons assigned by the court below for rejecting the compromise petition are not consistent with the provisions contained under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. He has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arjan Singh Vs Punit Ahlu Walia and Others (2008) 8 SCC 348 and the Judgment of this Court in the case of Gangavva Vs Basappa Bapu Naruti And Others ILR 2000 KAR 1498. He submits that even where a compromise or settlement is arrived at between the parties outside the Court, when one party to the Suit sets up a compromise and the other party denies the same, the Court is required to enquire into the matter and record a finding as to whether such a compromise was in fact entered into. It is for this reason, he submits, the Court below has held an enquiry into the matter to find out if such a compromise had, in fact, taken place. Instead of passing an order on the merits of the application based on the evidence already recorded, the Court below has proceeded to pass the impugned order wrongly construing the intent and purport of the provisions contained under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, is the contention of the learned Sr.counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri. Alva supports the order passed by the Court below. He, particularly, emphasizes the fact that the plaintiff had come forward with a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC requesting the Court to record the alleged compromise that had taken place about 20 months back. He submits that the alleged compromise is stated to have taken place on 4.5.1997 and the compromise petition is filed on 19.12.1998. When the defendant denied such a compromise, the Court ought to have proceeded with the main matter and the enquiry itself was uncalled for. 6. He submits that the alleged compromise is stated to have taken place on 4.5.1997 and the compromise petition is filed on 19.12.1998. When the defendant denied such a compromise, the Court ought to have proceeded with the main matter and the enquiry itself was uncalled for. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, I find that the Court below, has not construed the scope and purport of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC properly. The provision contained in Order 23 Rule 3 CPC 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." 7. Thus, it is clear from the provision extracted herein above that when 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 both the parties, the Court has to record such agreement or compromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC states that if the alleged compromise is denied by a party, then the Court shall decide the question without granting any adjournment for the purpose of deciding the same unless it thinks fit and proper for reasons to be recorded to grant such an adjournment. 8. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC states that if the alleged compromise is denied by a party, then the Court shall decide the question without granting any adjournment for the purpose of deciding the same unless it thinks fit and proper for reasons to be recorded to grant such an adjournment. 8. A careful perusal of the provision does not show that the lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties to the Suit shall have to be so entered into before the Court and that no such compromise or settlement entered into outside the Court can be produced requesting the Court to record the same after being satisfied of its execution. Such an interpretation will restrict the meaning and scope of rule 3 of Order 23. No such intention is discernable from the said rule. Therefore, the Court below erred in holding that the lawful agreement or compromise must have been so entered into and signed by the parties before the Court. 9. In fact, in the Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Shambhu Mada Vs Rama Ishwar AIR 1970 MYSORE 97 his Lordship Justice D.M. Chandrashekhar, as he then was, has observed in paragraph 14 as under: "14. Rule 3 Order 23 does not provide that the Court should exercise jurisdiction under that rule only when there is formal application by one of the parties to pass a decree in accordance with a compromise or agreement. When such compromise or agreement is pleaded by a party even by way of defence in a suit, I think, it is the duty of the Court to proceed to enquire into the existence of such compromise or agreement and to pass a decree in accordance with it, if it is proved." 10. Thus, it is clear that even if a compromise or settlement that has taken place outside the Court is set up by way of defence in a Suit, the Court is required to enquire into such agreement or compromise. 11. Thus, it is clear that even if a compromise or settlement that has taken place outside the Court is set up by way of defence in a Suit, the Court is required to enquire into such agreement or compromise. 11. In the case of Arjan Singh Vs Punit Ahluwalia and Others (Supra) at paragraph 14, the Apex Court referring to the Judgment in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs Ravinder Singh (2006)5 SCC 566 has held that the first part of Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC refers to situations where an agreement or compromise is entered into in writing and signed by the parties and when the said agreement or compromise is placed before the Court and the Court is satisfied that the Suit is adjusted either wholly or in part by such agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties and that the same was lawful, a decree follows in terms of what is agreed between the parties. 12. Thus, it is clear that the compromise or settlement that is entered into in writing and signed by the parties need not have been so entered into before the Court and in the presence of the Presiding Officer. What is required is the satisfaction of the Court regarding the fact that such a compromise or settlement has, in fact, been entered into and the same was duly reduced into writing and signed by both the parties. In addition, the Court has to be also satisfied that the same is lawful. If these requirements are satisfied, the compromise will be accepted and a decree in terms of the said compromise will have to be drawn. The Court below has misdirected itself in understanding the effect and purport of the provision. 13. It is submitted at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the parties that an enquiry has been already conducted into the issue relating to the alleged compromise/settlement of the dispute. If that is so, the Court below has to examine the evidence recorded and pass appropriate orders on the petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. It is for the Court below to examine the evidence on record and pass appropriate orders. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set-aside. If that is so, the Court below has to examine the evidence recorded and pass appropriate orders on the petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. It is for the Court below to examine the evidence on record and pass appropriate orders. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set-aside. The Court below is directed to pass orders on the application in the light of the observations made herein above. Since the matter is pending for the last nearly 14 years, I deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to expedite the disposal of the Suit and make all endeavour to dispose of the same within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.