ORDER : This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein order dated 11.12.2018 passed in Title Suit No.100 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the joint petition filed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 & 3 dated 15.02.2018 for passing a decree in terms of the joint settlement has been turned down. 2. The factual aspect of the case is that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit against the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 interalia for a decree for specific performance of contract and for a direction upon the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed and deliver possession to the plaintiff/petitioner in respect to the suit land being Title Suit No.100 of 2004. 3. The defendant No.2 and 3 along with the plaintiff have filed petition on 15.02.2018 in the said suit (Annexure-5) wherein prayer has been made to pass decree for 0.50 acre land as per counter claim in favour of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 for the land detailed in Schedule of this compromise and decree may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff for 0.43 acre land detailed in the Schedule of this compromise petition and accordingly direct the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for 0.43 acre land and in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 for 0.50 acre land out of the total area 0.93 acre of suit land of Plot No.1803 under Khata No.320 of Village-Baralota as per the admission made in the written statement dated 01.04.2005 filed by the defendant No.1. 4. The said petition has been objected to by the defendant No.1 by filing rejoinder (Annexure-6) and thereafter the impugned order has been passed rejecting the petition dated 15.02.2018 against which the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. 4. The said petition has been objected to by the defendant No.1 by filing rejoinder (Annexure-6) and thereafter the impugned order has been passed rejecting the petition dated 15.02.2018 against which the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the suit is of the year 2004 and since it is a suit for specific performance and agreement has been arrived at in between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 & 3, therefore, the suit ought to have been decreed in pursuance to the aforesaid settlement by issuing direction upon the plaintiff who also has admitted in the written statement with respect to the factual position basis upon which the settlement has been arrived at in between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 & 3 but ignoring the admission made by the plaintiff in the written statement, the impugned order has been passed, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone across the pleadings made in the writ petition as well as the record appended thereto and the findings recorded by the trial Court contained in the impugned order, it has been gathered that a suit for specific performance has been filed by the plaintiff and in course of its pendency, a petition was filed on 15.02.2018 by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 & 2 seeking therein the disposal of the suit in terms of the settlement arrived at in between the plaintiff vis-a-viz the defendant Nos.2 & 3. 7. 7. The prayer made in the petition dated 15.02.2018 needs to be referred hereunder as :- “It is, therefore, prayed that your honour would graciously be pleased to pass decree for 0.50 acre land as per counter claim in favour of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 for the land detailed in Schedule of this compromise and decree may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff for 0.43 acre land detailed in the Schedule of this Compromise petition and accordingly direct the defendant No.1 to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff for 0.43 acre of land and in favour of Defendant Nos.2 & 3 for 0.50 acre of land out of the total area 0.93 acre suit land of Plot No.1803 under Khata No.320 of Village-Baralota as per the admission made in the written statement dated 01.04.2005 filed by the defendant No.1.” 8. Rejoinder has been filed by the defendant No.1 as contained under Annexure-6 wherein the settlement which has been arrived at in between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 & 3 as has been stipulated in the petition dated 15.02.2018 has seriously been objected by taking the ground that the agreement which pertains to transfer of area of 0.93 acres in suit in favour of the petitioner who by creating forged paper claiming the same to be the agreement, a complaint case has been filed being Complaint Case No.26 of 2003 on the strength of the forged paper in which the defendant No.1 has been acquitted and further he has not received any consideration amount to transfer an area of 0.93 acres of land pertaining to Plot No.1803 under Khata No.320 in the suit and as such he has denied the entire pleading. 9. The further denial is of the agreement to transfer of the suit land for consideration amount from the plaintiff. 10. 9. The further denial is of the agreement to transfer of the suit land for consideration amount from the plaintiff. 10. The trial Court after appreciating the stand taken by the defendant Nos.2 & 3 that plaintiff in the petition dated 15.02.2018 vis-a-viz the response submitted by way of rebuttal reply of the defendant No.1 has passed the order rejecting the aforesaid petition dated 15.02.2018 on the ground that the defendant No.1 has challenged the maintainability of the suit on various grounds by taking a plea in paragraph Nos.15, 16 and 17 to the effect that wherein the agreement itself has been disputed and therefore, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the stand taken by the defendant no.1 in his written statement needs adjudication and if it will be disposed of in terms of the said joint petition dated 15.02.2018 the issue which has been raised by the defendant No.1 will remain unanswered. 11. After perusing the findings recorded by the trial Court and looking to the dispute in between the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff for transfer of the landed property by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff wherein the terms of agreement itself has been disputed by the defendant No.1 in the written statement and therefore, since there is a serious dispute with respect to the stipulation made by the plaintiff in the plaint hence, the same needs adjudication as the petition has been filed merely on account of the fact that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 & 3 have arrived at an agreement, the suit cannot be concluded on the basis of the joint agreement discarding the stand taken by the defendant No.1 in the written statement and therefore, the trial Court while passing the aforesaid order has not committed an error. 12. In view thereof, no interference is warranted by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the limited scope therein which can be exercised if there is error apparent on the face of record or there is perversity in the findings but according to the considered view of this Court, no such ground made out. 13. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 14. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and decide strictly on the basis of the pleadings made by the parties in accordance with law.