JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17/12/90 passed by I Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Appeal No. 45-A/87 and decree dated 21/12/90 whereby the judgment and decree dated 19/12/79. passed by Civil Judge, Class-1, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 21-A/74 whereby the decree passed in favour of Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 was set aside, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The appeal was admitted for final hearing by this Court vide order dated 06/12/91 on the following substantial question of law: Whether the learned lower Appellate Court committed error of law in rejecting the application of the Appellant to add the State Government as a party in view of amendment in Order I Rule 3(a) of Code of Civil Procedure? 3. Vide order dated 30/06/10 following additional substantial questions of law were framed: Whether the lower Court erred in not dismissing the appeal due to non-impleading the Respondent Samandbai? Whether the alleged compromise of 5/12/1983 could he recorded after the same was rejected by the Court? Whether the lower Court acted in accordance with Order 23 Rule 3 in recording compromise despite the protest of the Appellant and wrongly denying him the opportunity to lead evidence? 4. Mr. Mangesh Bhachawat. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 at the outset submits that the appeal itself is not maintainable in view of bar contemplated under Section 96(3) Code of Civil Procedure. In reply learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that since the appeal was disposed of by the learned Appellate Court upon compromise application and the validity of the compromise is under challenge, therefore, the appeal is maintainable. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Kishun @ Ram Kishun (Dead) th. Lrs. v. Behari (Dead) th. Lrs.. JT 2005(6) SC 614 wherein one party set-up compromise and other party disputing. Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Court has to adjudicate if there was compromise or not and pass a decree and hence, it is appealable. 5. In view of the aforesaid position of law this Court is of the view that since the validity of the compromise itself is under challenge, therefore, the appeal filed by the Appellant is maintainable, hence the objection raised by the Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 stands rejected. 6. 5. In view of the aforesaid position of law this Court is of the view that since the validity of the compromise itself is under challenge, therefore, the appeal filed by the Appellant is maintainable, hence the objection raised by the Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 stands rejected. 6. Short facts of the case are that the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 are real brothers. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are the legal representatives of deceased Kanhaiyalal. The land in dispute is an agricultural land situated at village Babdikheda, Tehsil Garoth. The suit was filed on 20/11/74 by the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 against the Respondent No. 10 and mother of Appellant Nos. 8 to 10 Smt. Samandbai and also against Kanhaiyalal whose legal representatives are Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 alleging that Madhavsingh was the father of Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 and husband of Smt. Samandbai. It was alleged that Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 and Samandbai are the legal representatives of deceased Madhavsingh. It was alleged that Madhavsingh was the owner of suit land and after his death his legal representatives became Bhumiswami of the suit land. It was alleged that Samandbai and Respsondent No. 10 sold the suit property to Kanhaiyalal vide sale deed dated 03/06/72 for a consideration of Rs. 6,500/-. It was alleged that the sale deed was executed by deceased Samandbai in her personal capacity and also as natural guardian of Appellant and Respondent No. 9 alleging that the Appellant and Respondent No. 9 are minor. It was alleged that Appellant and Respondent No. 9 were major on the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 03/06/72. It was alleged that since Appellant and Respondent No. 9 and also Respondent No. 8 were having rights in the suit property being legal representatives of deceased Madhavsingh, therefore, Respondent No. 10 and Samandbai was having no right to transfer the suit property showing themselves as owners of the suit property. It was alleged that deceased Samandbai was also having no right to transfer the suit property being natural guardian of Appellant and Respondent No. 9 as no leave was obtained for transferring the suit property from the competent authority. It was alleged that Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are in occupation of the land. It was alleged that deceased Samandbai was also having no right to transfer the suit property being natural guardian of Appellant and Respondent No. 9 as no leave was obtained for transferring the suit property from the competent authority. It was alleged that Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are in occupation of the land. Lateron the suit was amended and it was incorporated that deceased Kanhaiyalal has taken the possession of the suit property on 01/06/76 forcibly. In the suit it was prayed that the sale deed dated 03/06/72 be cancelled as null and void and the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 be put into possession. 7. The suit was contested by the deceased Kanhaiyalal on various grounds alleging that the sale deed executed by the Respondent No. 10 and also deceased Samandbai in her personal capacity and also as natural guardian of Appellant and Respondent No. 9 was with consideration and also in the interest of minors, hence the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence the suit filed by the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 was decreed, against which deceased Kanhaiyalal in his life time filed an appeal. During pendency of appeal applications were filed by the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 for compromise which were allowed and in terms of compromise decree passed against Kanhaiyalal was set aside, against which present appeal has been filed. 8. Mr. P.K. Saxena, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that earlier Mr. N.K. Gandhi was the advocate appearing on behalf of Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9. It is , submitted that the case was fixed for arguments somewhere in the month of November. 1983 and on the request of Counsel the case was adjourned for 11/01/84 as the Counsel was busy in the marriage of his son. It is submitted that after adjournment, an application was filed by the Appellant and Respondent No. 9 on 15/12/83 which was marked as IA. No. 6 wherein it was alleged that the matter has been settled between them and deceased Kanhaiyalal in compromise and according to which compensation has been received. It is submitted that after adjournment, an application was filed by the Appellant and Respondent No. 9 on 15/12/83 which was marked as IA. No. 6 wherein it was alleged that the matter has been settled between them and deceased Kanhaiyalal in compromise and according to which compensation has been received. In the compromise application it was prayed that since the matter has been settled between Appellant and Respondent No. 9 and deceased Kanhaiyalal, therefore, decree be set aside. It is submitted that this application was filed by Mr. Arvind Joshi, advocate, while he was not arguing Counsel. It was alleged that Mr. Arvind Joshi, advocate was engaged on that very day for the purpose of filing of the application. It is submitted that no permission/NOC was obtained by Mr. Arvind Joshi, advocate from Mr. N.K. Gandhi, advocate who was appearing on behalf of Appellant. It is submitted that this act itself was illegal and in violation of Rule 11 of High Court Rules and Orders in M.P., which lays down that no advocate shall be permitted to file an appointment or memorandum of appearance in any proceeding in which another advocate is already on record for the same party save with the consent of the former advocate on record or the leave of the Court, unless the former advocate has ceased to practice or has by reason of infirmity of mind or body or otherwise become unable to continue to act. Learned Counsel further submits that after filing of the application the case was adjourned from time to time and on 19/01/84 learned Appellate Court expressly recorded the findings that no compromise has taken place and thereafter the case proceeded for further hearing on merits and at a subsequent stage the same compromise was accepted, which is illegal and not permissible under the law. It is submitted that since at one stage learned Appellate Court declined to record the compromise and recorded in the order that no compromise has taken place, then at the subsequent stage on the basis of same application learned Appellate Court committed error in recording the compromise as it hits by principle of res judicata. Learned Counsel further submits that undisputedly after submission of the application for compromise appeal proceeded for hearing on merits, therefore, the compromise stands washed out. Learned Counsel further submits that undisputedly after submission of the application for compromise appeal proceeded for hearing on merits, therefore, the compromise stands washed out. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Firm Ramchandra Mathuralal v. Kalusingh. 1962 JLJ 495 wherein this Court has held that once a compromise is arrived at during the pendency of a suit, the Plaintiff should not proceed with the suit. He should ask the Court to record the compromise and satisfy it that the agreement is genuine. If he, however, changes his mind and the other party also acquiesces, the compromise is washed out, and the suit should proceed on merits. But he cannot later on, when his hopes do not materialise, come back to the compromise. His conduct amounts to a repudiation of the compromise. It is no less a repudiation because it is tacit and disentitles him at later stage to ask that the compromise should be recorded. Learned Counsel further submits that the case was adjourned for enquiry on the compromise. It is submitted that the adjournment was prayed by the Counsel for both the parties, but the learned Court below did not adjourn the case and allowed the application and decree passed in favour of Appellant was set aside. Learned Counsel further submits that before the learned Appellate Court a specific application was filed by the Appellant wherein it was alleged that no compromise has taken place with the Appellant. It is submitted that this application is dated 19/03/86 and marked as IA. No. 10 and the same was supported by an affidavit. It is submitted that in the said application it was specifically alleged that the Appellant has not engaged Mr. Arvind Joshi, advocate and has not signed the application. It is submitted that it is this application upon which the learned Appellate Court directed to hold the enquiry about compromise. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case when a date was fixed for enquiry, prayer was made for adjournment, there was no justification on the part of learned Appellate Court in not adjourning the case. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case when a date was fixed for enquiry, prayer was made for adjournment, there was no justification on the part of learned Appellate Court in not adjourning the case. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the Appellant be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits or in alternative for enquiry on compromise. 9. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 submit that no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court in allowing the compromise application. It is submitted that it is true that Mr. N.K. Gandhi, advocate was appearing on behalf of Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9. It is submitted that since inspite of request made by the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 Counsel did not move an appropriate application for compromise, therefore, they were compelled to file the application by another advocate. It is submitted that since the power was filed on behalf of Appellant and Respondent No. 9, therefore, the contract between the Appellant, Respondent No. 9 and earlier advocate stands terminated. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Umraji (Smt.) v. R.C. Baipai. 1985 JL.J 540, wherein this Court held that upon appearing of the subsequent Counsel the earlier authority if any given in general terms in the Vakalatnama stands withdrawn. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 7 submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned appellate Court in recording compromise and passing the order dated 17.7.90, whereby the compromise application was accepted. Learned Counsel submits that the order dated 19.1.84 is not an order because no application was decided by the said order. It is submitted that for application of principles of res judicata matter is required to be heard and decided. It is submitted that since the application was not heard and decided, therefore, it cannot be treated as an order under Order 23 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure rejecting the compromise. It is submitted that for application of principles of res judicata matter is required to be heard and decided. It is submitted that since the application was not heard and decided, therefore, it cannot be treated as an order under Order 23 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure rejecting the compromise. It is submitted that if the application would have been dismissed by the Appellate Court on 19.1.84 itself then there was not reason for the Appellant to move IA No. 9 on 24.1.86 and I.A. No. 10 on 23.3.86 as application for compromise was already dismissed. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 10. From perusal of the record it is evident that the case was listed in the month of November, 1983 and upon the request of Counsel for Appellant Shri N.K. Gandhi the case was adjourned on 11.1.84. 1 .A. No. 15 was filed on 15/03/84, whereby a prayer was made for preponement of the date. On 15.3.84 itself the statement of Appellant-Respondent No. 9 Mohansingh was recorded and the case was adjourned again for orders on the application on 11.11.84, which was the date already fixed. Thereafter again from time-to-time the case was adjourned for one reason or the other. Since the appeal was not disposed of on 15.3.83 itself after preponing the case, therefore, it is having no bearing on the case that application for compromise was filed by preponing the case or by changing the Advocate. Shri.N.K. Gandhi, Advocate, who was the Counsel in the original case was continued later on and made appearance, therefore, the contention of the Appellant that the Rule 11 of the M.P. High Court Rules has not been followed, has no merits in the facts and circumstances of the case. Otherwise also Rule 11 has been framed for the benefit of the Advocates so that unscrupulous litigant should not run away without payment of fees. 11. If the contention of the Appellant would have been that Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 won over the Appellant and got the application for compromise filed by preponing the date and also by changing the advocate, then the position would have been otherwise. On the contrary in the present case inspite of preponing the date appeal was not disposed of on that date but the case was adjourned to record further evidence on compromise on the date which was already fixed. On the contrary in the present case inspite of preponing the date appeal was not disposed of on that date but the case was adjourned to record further evidence on compromise on the date which was already fixed. On that date again the earlier advocate Shri N.K. Gandhi continued which shows that neither the advocate was changed with an oblique motive nor any fraud was played for recording the compromise. 12. There are some important dates and events which requires consideration of this Court, which are as under: Sr. No. Date Events 1. 30/07/83 Kanhaiyalal predecessor in title of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 died. 2. 18/08/83 Application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 for bringing them on record in place of deceased Kanhaiyalal. 3. 18/11/83 Adjournment was prayed on account of marriage of son of the Counsel for Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 Shri NK. Gandhi. Case was adjourned for arguments on 11/01/84. 4. 15/12/83 (a) Power was filed by Shri Arvind Joshi. advocate on behalf of Arjun Singh Appellant and Mohansingh Respondent No. 9 alongwith an application for early hearing. (b) Another application was filed on that very day in which it was alleged that the matter has been settled between Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Appellant and Respondent No. 9. (c) Statement of Mohansingh (Respondent No. 9). Arjun Singh (Appellant). Kachrulal (Respondent No. 2) and Mohanlal (Respondent No. 3) were recorded and the case was adjourned for 11/01/84 as already fixed in the case. 5. 11/01/84 Shri N.K. Gandhi original Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 appeared and the case was adjourned for 19/01/84. 6. 19/01/84 Learned Court observed that no compromise took place, hence the case was adjourned for final arguments on 25/02/84. 7. 16/03/84 Application was filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to implead State of M.P. as party keeping in view the mandatory amended provisions of Order 1 Rule 3(b) Code of Civil Procedure. 8. 06/04/84 Reply was filed on behalf of Appellant and other Respondents wherein it was prayed that application has been filed to delay the proceedings, hence the same be dismissed. 9. 31/01/86 Parties prayed for time. Case was adjourned for 19/02/86 by the learned Appellate Court reluctantly as it was a old case. 10. 06/02/86 Application was filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 9. 31/01/86 Parties prayed for time. Case was adjourned for 19/02/86 by the learned Appellate Court reluctantly as it was a old case. 10. 06/02/86 Application was filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and also on behalf of Respondent No. 8 Vajesingh wherein it was alleged that the matter has been settled in compromise, therefore, case be taken up by proponing the date and compromise be recorded. 11. 24/02/86 An application was filed by the Appellant and Mohan Singh Respondent No. 9 wherein it was alleged that the application for compromise has been filed by Respondent No. 8 Vajesingh, therefore, Respondent No. 8 be directed to supply copy of the application to the Appellant and Respondent No. 9. 12. 19/03/86 An application was filed by the Appellant supported with an affidavit IA. No. 10 alleging that Appellant was informed by his Counsel Mr. N.K. Gandhi that some compromise application has been filed on 15/12/83 on behalf of Appellant through Mr. Arvind Joshi, advocate, while Appellant has not moved any application. 13. 13/01/87 (a) An application IA. No. 12 was filed on behalf oi Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 which was in fact reply of the application dated 24/02/86 filed by Appellant wherein it was alleged that so far as application for compromise filed by Appellant and Respondent No. 8 is concerned, has already verified by the Court, therefore, Appellant and Respondent No. 9 are not entitled to ask for the copy of compromise application which has taken place between Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and 8. (b) Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 filed an application IA. No. 13 which is reply of the application dated 19/03/86 filed by Appellant wherein it was specifically stated that on 15/12/83 Appellant and Respondent No. 9 were present in Court with Mr. Arvind Joshi, advocate and entered into compromise which was verified by the Court on that very day. It was alleged that contention of the Appellant that the Appellant came to know about the compromise through Mr. N.K. Gandhi, advocate on 19/09/86 is not correct. (c) IA. No. 14 was filed by Respondent No. 9 wherein it was alleged that on 15/12/83 the application for compromise was filed by Appellant and Respondent No. 9 through Mr. Arvind Joshi, advocate, which has, been duly verified by the Court. N.K. Gandhi, advocate on 19/09/86 is not correct. (c) IA. No. 14 was filed by Respondent No. 9 wherein it was alleged that on 15/12/83 the application for compromise was filed by Appellant and Respondent No. 9 through Mr. Arvind Joshi, advocate, which has, been duly verified by the Court. It was also alleged that the compromise application dated 15/12/83 also bears the thumb impression of the Appellant who is brother of 70/00/88 Respondent No. 9. It was alleged that Respondent No. 9 is still on the compromise for which Respondent No. 9 was having no objection. (d) Case was adjourned to 22/01/87. 14. 29/09/88 Case was fixed for consideration of application and objections relating to compromise and adjourned to 29/10/88. 15. 09/08/89 IA. No. 16 filed by Vajesingh Respondent No. 8 wherein it was prayed that since State is not impleaded as party in the suit therefore, judgment passed by the learned Court below be set aside and the case be remanded to decide afresh after impleading the State as party. 16. 21/08/89 IA. No. 17 filed by Appellant and Respondent No. 8 Vajesingh alleging that no compromise has taken place by the Appellant and Respondent No. 8 with Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and also they have never engaged Mr. Arvind Joshi, as advocate, therefore, Mr. Arvind Joshi and Mr. Sukhial Patidar. advocates be directed not to appear on behalf of Appellant and Respondent No. 8. 17. 01/12/89 Affidavit filed by Mohan Singh Respondent No. 9 duly notarized stating that compromise took place between the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Appellant and Respondent No. 9 on the basis of which Mr. Arvind Joshi. advocate Filed the application on 15/12/83, upon which case was taken up on that very day by preponing the date 11/01/84 and the compromise was verified by the Court on that very day. It was alleged that Appellant Arjun Singh has put his thumb impression on the application in his presence and his statement was also recorded by the Court on that very day. 18. 27/10/89 Application was filed by Respondent No. 8 Vajesingh to the effect that compromise is taking place, therefore, case be adjourned. 19. 24/04/90 (a) Application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and also by Vajesingh Respondent No. 8 praying that the compromise has taken place between the parties, which is enclosed and as per compromise order be passed. 18. 27/10/89 Application was filed by Respondent No. 8 Vajesingh to the effect that compromise is taking place, therefore, case be adjourned. 19. 24/04/90 (a) Application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and also by Vajesingh Respondent No. 8 praying that the compromise has taken place between the parties, which is enclosed and as per compromise order be passed. In the compromise application filed alongwith application it was alleged that Respondent No. 8 is having no objection regarding sale deed dated 03/06/72 which was executed in favour of Kanhaiyalal predecessor in title of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, which was also supported by an affidavit oi Respondent No. 8 Vaje Singh. (b) Statement of Vaje Singh Respondent No. 8 was also recorded. 20. 14/09/90 (a) Application filed by Appellant which was marked as IA. No. 18 it was again alleged that no compromise has taken place on 15/12/83. It was alleged that even if it is treated as compromise, than the Appellant prays that the application be dismissed as withdrawn. (b) IA. No. 19 filed by Appellant wherein it was alleged that compromise which has been filed on 22/08/90 is illegal and with an object to by pass the provisions of MPLRC, ceiling Act and Registration Act, therefore, the same be dismissed. (c) IA. No. 20 filed by Appellant wherein it was alleged that the application filed on 15/12/83 is not filed by the Appellant and the said application is not a compromise. It was prayed that the application dated 15/12/83 be dismissed. 21. Case was adjourned on 17/09/90, 22/10/90. 27/10/90. 01/11/90, 08/11/90 and 26/11/90. 22. 26/11/90 Arguments heard. Case reserved for 17/12/90. 23. 17/12/90 Impugned order passed. 13. So far as contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that since application for compromise dated 15/12/83 was rejected by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 19/01/84, therefore, no order could have been passed on the said application, as it hits by the principles of res judecata is concerned, the objection raised by the Counsel for the Appellant is untenable, as the question is required to be heard and finally decided by the Court. From perusal of the order dated 19/01/84 it is evident that it was not observed by the learned Appellate Court that since no compromise has taken place, therefore, application stands dismissed. From perusal of the order dated 19/01/84 it is evident that it was not observed by the learned Appellate Court that since no compromise has taken place, therefore, application stands dismissed. On the contrary in the order-sheet it is mentioned that no compromise has taken place, let the case be listed for final hearing. Till this date no application was filed by the Appellant to the effect that the Appellant is withdrawing the application dated 15/12/83. Since no application for compromise was filed on 15/12/83 by Respondent No. 8 Vaje Singh, therefore, so far as it relates to the rights of Vajesingh Respondent No. 8 is concerned, appeal was required to be heard finally, therefore, the observation made in the order dated 19/01/84 to the effect that 'compromise has not taken place' relates to Respondent No. 8 Vajesingh. So far as Appellant is concerned, Appellant did not dispute the compromise on 19/01/84, on the contrary conduct of the Appellant reflects in the order dated 06/04/85 when the reply of the application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 dated 16/03/84 by the Appellant to implead the State as party was filed, in which it was stated that Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are unnecessarily prolonging the case. Appellant has objected the compromise dated 15/12/83 for the First time on 24/02/86. In view of this, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not hit by principles of res judecata, as the application dated 15/12/83 was not dismissed vide order dated 19/01/84. 14. So far as contention of the Appellant that Mr. Arvind Joshi, advocate was having no authority to file the application as arguing Counsel was Mr. N.K. Gandhi, who was appearing in the case right from beginning is concerned, is also not well founded, firstly because inspite of prepondering the case and moving the application for compromise through some other advocate, the case was not finally decided on that day and the case was adjourned for a day when it was originally fixed. On that day also Mr. N.K. Gandhi, original advocate remained present on behalf of Appellant and thereafter continuously appeared for the Appellant. Since from the record it is evident that the sale deed was executed by Respondent No. 10 and Mother of Appellant and Respondent Nos. On that day also Mr. N.K. Gandhi, original advocate remained present on behalf of Appellant and thereafter continuously appeared for the Appellant. Since from the record it is evident that the sale deed was executed by Respondent No. 10 and Mother of Appellant and Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 Smt. Samandbai in her personal capacity and also as guardian of Appellant and Respondent No. 9. Respondent No. 8 who was admittedly major on the date of execution of sale deed, was not the party to the sale deed. However, Respondent No. 8 also entered into compromise and gave his statement in support of compromise. Respondent No. 9 who is co-signatory to the application filed on 15/12/83 has lastly supported the compromise as the impugned order has not been challenged by Respondent No. 9. So far as Appellant is concerned, in the application dated 15/12/83 it is mentioned that the sale deed took place for payment of debts and Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are in possession and also Appellant has got compensation. It is also stated in the application that Respondent No. 8 was separated long before and he has already sold out the property which fell into his share. 15. So far as deceased Kanhaiyalal predecessor in title of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 is concerned, it was alleged that deceased Kanhaiyalal has become occupancy tenant and earlier also judgment has been passed against the Appellant. In support of this application statement of Appellant Arjunsingh was also recorded on that very day, in which Appellant has stated before the Court that he has entered into compromise with Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and the compromise application is acceptable to the Appellant. It was also stated that Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are in possession. After three years of filing of this application as the application was filed on 15/12/83 and the statement was recorded on that very day, for the first time on 24/02/86 Appellant has disputed the compromise. In the subsequent application filed by Appellant and Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 it is evident that Respondent No. 9 who was co-signatory of the application dated 15/12/83 also objected and challenged the validity, but subsequently accepted the compromise again and also alleged that the application dated 15/12/83 bears the thumb impression of the Appellant and also admitted that Appellant was present in Court and gave his statement. 8 and 9 it is evident that Respondent No. 9 who was co-signatory of the application dated 15/12/83 also objected and challenged the validity, but subsequently accepted the compromise again and also alleged that the application dated 15/12/83 bears the thumb impression of the Appellant and also admitted that Appellant was present in Court and gave his statement. Respondent No. 9 also submitted that Mr. Arvind Joshi was the Counsel engaged by the Appellant and Respondent No. 9 who filed the application. 16. Order 23 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure deals with the compromise application. Proviso has been inserted in Rule 3 Order 23 vide Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 1976 w.e.f. 01/02/77 which reads as under: 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, think fit to grant such adjournment. 17. As per aforesaid proviso it is evident that in case it is alleged by one party and denied by other party about compromise, the Court has to decide the question, but for that no adjournment should be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment. 18. From the record it is evident that compromise application was filed by the Appellant on 15/12/83, objection regarding validity of compromise was filed on 19/03/86 and no evidence was adduced by the Appellant inspite of opportunity. Not only this inspite of objection raised by the Appellant relating to compromise after more than three years, it is no where stated by the Appellant that Appellant did not appear on 15/12/83 before the learned Court and some body else was impersonated as Appellant in the Court on that day. As against this Respondent No. 9 who also objected the compromise, not only took 'U' turn by admitting the compromise, but has gone one step ahead and stated that Appellant also moved the compromise application jointly gave his statement in the Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court in passing the impugned order. 19. 19. Apart from this on merits also the sale deed under challenge is dated 03/06/72 which has been executed by Smt. Samandbai, who is none else but the mother of Appellant in her personal capacity as well as in the capacity of natural guardian of Appellant and Respondent No. 9. Validity of the sale deed was challenged by the Appellant, Respondent No. 8 and 9. Respondent No. 8 was having the strongest case who was not the party to the sale deed and was major at the relevant time and also was having right in the suit property. However Respondent No. 8 entered into compromise and settled the claim with Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Similarly Appellant and Respondent No. 9 both moved the application for compromise and both of them subsequently moved the application before the learned Appellate Court alleging that no compromise application was filed by them. However, later on Respondent No. 9 has moved the application wherein he has admitted that the application for compromise was filed by Respondent No. 9 alongwith Appellant jointly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, subsequent conduct of the Appellant appears to be doubtful and speaks in volume against him. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is in accordance with law, inspite of protest of the Appellant, who did not appear before the Court inspite of opportunity. So far as substantial question of law No. 1 is concerned, no answer is necessary as it was not argued before this Court. 20. In view of this, appeal filed by the Appellant has no force, hence stands dismissed. No order as to costs.