ORDER 1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/plaintiff is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 14.7.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.17A/2014. The trial Court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXIII rule 3 read with section 151 CPC for passing compromise decree. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court in fact and in effect has given extraneous reasons while rejecting the application for compromise inasmuch as the land in question was given on patta to the plaintiff by the competent authority on 16.6.1976 and the same was fructified with Bhumiswami rights by force of the orders of the Tahsildar dated 29.9.1987 (Annexure P-4) under the provision as contained under section 190 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The trial Court ignored the fact of continuous possession, cultivating the land and harvesting crops by the plaintiff over the suit land. The name of the plaintiff has been recorded in the revenue record showing him to be Bhumiswami and in possession of the suit land. The trial Court was influenced with its perception that there is no further continuous after issuance of the patta in the year 1976. Besides, the allegations made by the petitioner in FIR No.442/2014 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Morena against the respondent No.1/defendant in respect of the suit land. Under these circumstances, the trial Court found that there is dispute between the parties and, therefore, unless the same is resolved, the application filed under Order XXIII rule 3 CPC for compromise decree cannot be considered. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant have fairly submitted before this Court that there is no dispute persists between the plaintiff and the defendant. Both clearly admit that the suit land is of the ownership of the plaintiff and is in his possession. Plaintiff does not intend to press the FIR (supra), filed by him against the defendant. Under these circumstances, the controversy raised in the instant suit does not survive and there appears to be no reason for denying a compromise decree on the basis of their application filed under Order XXIII rule 3 CPC. Plaintiff does not intend to press the FIR (supra), filed by him against the defendant. Under these circumstances, the controversy raised in the instant suit does not survive and there appears to be no reason for denying a compromise decree on the basis of their application filed under Order XXIII rule 3 CPC. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with direction that the trial Court shall take up the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXIII rule 3 CPC and after taking on record affidavits of the plaintiff and the respondent No.1/defendant to the aforesaid effect shall pass a compromise decree upon production of certified copy of order passed today. Prashant Sharma for petitioner; Sanjay Kumar Mishra for respondent No.1; Ms. Nidhi Patankar, Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State.