JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. The instant civil revision is directed against the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Division-I, Godda in Miscellaneous Case No.07 of 1994, whereby and whereunder the review application for order dated 16.11.1994 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.05 of 1994, disposed of on the basis of compromise was sought for recalled/reviewed, has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that one Mosmat Mansar (since deceased) wife of late Haldhar Sah and Ghan Shyam Sah (since deceased) son of late Haldhar Sah instituted Miscellaneous Case No.05 of 1994 in the Court of SubJudge, Godda against Giriwar Manjhi & Ors. seeking relief that opposite parties be directed to deposit all documents, i.e., mortgage by Conditional Sale dated 13.05.1988 and other relevant and connected papers and to reconvey and makeover possession of Schedule 'A' property to the petitioners and receive amount deposited as Full Charge of Mortgage Dues. The opposite parties appeared on 16.11.1994 before the concerned Court and the next date was fixed on 07.11.1994, however, an application was filed to prepone the date and also accept the compromise entered into between the parties produced into writing. The learned Court recalled the date and recorded the compromise between the parties entered into as per terms and conditions settled between them and thereafter disposed of the case in terms of compromise. The original petitioners filed an application under Order XLVII read with Section 151 and 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recalling the order dated 16.11.1994 which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.07 of 1994. The opposite parties also appeared and filed their show cause and after hearing the parties, the learned Court below considering the respective submissions of the parties and other materials, arrived at definite conclusion that the compromise arrived at between the parties has not been proved to be obtained through putting undue influence, misrepresentation or fraud. Therefore, there is no reason to review the order passed on the basis of compromise in Miscellaneous Case No.05 of 1994 dated 16.11.1994, accordingly, the application for review was dismissed. 4. Therefore, there is no reason to review the order passed on the basis of compromise in Miscellaneous Case No.05 of 1994 dated 16.11.1994, accordingly, the application for review was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned order has primarily raised an objection that at the time of recording the compromise between the parties, one of the co-mortgagers Giriwar Manjhi and Nand Kishore Manjhi were not examined. Similarly, the date was preponed and the compromise was recorded in haste which also cast cloud on genuineness of the compromise, therefore, impugned order is not legally sustainable. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the above contentions and submitted that the learned Court below has properly considered the materials and passed reasoned order which suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference by way of this revision which is fit to be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the impugned order in light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 7. It appears that the appearance of all the parties and presenting joint compromise petitioner in Miscellaneous Case No.05 of 1994 is admitted fact. It is also admitted that all the parties have put their signatures over the joint compromise petition confirming the terms and conditions thereof. The compromise was also verified by the Court taking evidence of some witnesses in order to ascertain the genuineness thereof. No objection was raised at the time of recording the compromise by the learned Court below. No element of vitiating the settlement/compromise arrived between the parties like fraud, coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation and mistake etc. has been pleaded and proved to negate the terms and conditions of the compromise or cast any doubt on the settlement itself. It appears that the learned Trial Court has recorded the objective findings and its reasons for not entertaining the review application and accordingly, rejected the same. Therefore, I do not find any reason for interference in the impugned order and no merits in this revision which stands dismissed. 8. Pending I.As., if any, also stand dismissed.