JUDGMENT : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This review petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Abdul Jalil Laskar praying for review of the order dated 26.06.2020 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanta Kumar Deka, since retired) in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020. It appears that notice issued to respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 have been duly served and no one has appeared for them, therefore, this review petition proceeded ex-parte against them. As regards, the respondent No. 7 is concerned, since the said respondent did not even contest the suit before the Trial Court, therefore, his presence in the instant review petition was dispensed with. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant review petition, in brief, are that the present petitioner had instituted the suit bearing Title Suit No. 59/2007 in the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi for declaration of right, title and interest and for possession as well as for cancellation of deed. The opposite parties as defendants appeared and contested the said suit by filing written statement. However, by judgment dated 07.09.2015, the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the present petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.09.2015, the present petitioner preferred a title appeal being Title Appeal No. 01/2016 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hailakandi. The said appeal was allowed by judgment dated 15.12.2016, and the decree was drawn accordingly. Being aggrieved, by the judgment dated 15.12.2016, the opposite party, namely, Amin Ali had preferred a regular second appeal, which was registered as RSA No. 150/2017 and it was admitted for hearing on 23.05.2017. 5. The said appeal was allowed by judgment dated 15.12.2016, and the decree was drawn accordingly. Being aggrieved, by the judgment dated 15.12.2016, the opposite party, namely, Amin Ali had preferred a regular second appeal, which was registered as RSA No. 150/2017 and it was admitted for hearing on 23.05.2017. 5. During the pendency of the aforesaid regular second appeal, the respondent No. 1 had filed an interlocutory application, which was registered as I.A.(C) No. 974/2020, stating therein that the petitioner as well as the respondent have come to an amicable settlement to settle the dispute between them with the condition that the petitioner shall relinquish his right, title and interest over the Schedule I, II and III lands for the consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) only, which the applicant has already paid to the petitioner. 6. It was also pleaded in the said interlocutory application that the parties have agreed to for an out of Court settlement and accordingly prayed for drawing up of a compromise decree. Accordingly, by order dated 26.06.2020, passed in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the interlocutory application and directed for drawing up a compromise agreement and also directed to dispose of the regular second appeal on the basis of the order passed in the said interlocutory application. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2020, the present interlocutory application has been filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no amicable settlement or any compromise agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the RSA No. 150/2017 as stated by the respondent in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the regular second appeal, the nephew of the applicant, namely, Nurul Amin Laskar had told the petitioner not to worry about the regular second appeal preferred by the respondent and assured him to engage lawyers to defend the regular second appeal before the High Court. Accordingly, he took signatures of the review petitioner on A4 size papers, as well as in the Vakalatnama. It is also alleged in the interlocutory application that said Nurul Amin Laskar also took an amount of Rs.20,000/-from the petitioner in the month of May, 2018 and also asked him to deposit Rs.8,000/- later on in his account. Accordingly, he took signatures of the review petitioner on A4 size papers, as well as in the Vakalatnama. It is also alleged in the interlocutory application that said Nurul Amin Laskar also took an amount of Rs.20,000/-from the petitioner in the month of May, 2018 and also asked him to deposit Rs.8,000/- later on in his account. 8. The said Nurul Amin Laskar has informed the petitioner that the regular second appeal has been admitted and it will take some time for listing for hearing and the petitioner was in bona fide belief that same would be done. However, in the month of July, 2020, when one of the relatives of the petitioner visited the petitioner's house and informed him that the status of the regular second appeal can be enquired in the mobile phone in the website of the Gauhati High Court and when he came to know that the regular second appeal has been disposed of on the basis of the order passed by the Court in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020, he realised that he has been tricked by his nephew and the opposite parties. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case, fraud has been committed with the petitioner as well as on the Court by misusing the A4 papers on which the petitioner had signed and had given to his nephew on faith. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no written agreement of compromise was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and his signature submitted on a blank paper has been fraudulently used in the affidavit supporting the compromise petition filed in this case in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC, the claim in a suit may be adjusted whole in part only if there is a lawful agreement or compromise and the same compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties and there must be a completed agreement between them. However, in the instant case, there is no written compromise between the parties neither the signatures of the petitioner are there on the said written compromise deed and, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the records. He submits that the order in the review is liable to be set aside. However, in the instant case, there is no written compromise between the parties neither the signatures of the petitioner are there on the said written compromise deed and, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the records. He submits that the order in the review is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Prasanta Kumar Sahoo and Ors. Vs. Charulata sahu and Ors. ” reported in “ (2023) 9 SCC 641 ” as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of “ Amro Devi and Ors. Vs. Julfi Ram (deceased) through LRS. and Ors .” reported in“ 2024 INSC 527 ” 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has opposed the prayer for reviewing the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order has been rightly passed on the basis of a compromise application filedunder Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC. He submits that the said compromise petition was duly supported by an affidavit which has been jointly signed by the petitioner as well as by the respondent. He submits that the respondent No. 1 has already paid the agreed amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) onlyto the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has also submitted that by merely alleging the fraud without producing any conclusive proof as to the fraud, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought for in the review application. He submits that the impugned order passed in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 was passed on the basis of a compromise petition filed jointly by the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 and they have jointly signed on the supporting affidavit. He further submits that apart from making mere allegation of fraud, nothing has been produced to prove this allegation, therefore, this is a fit case, where the application filed by the petitioner may be dismissed with costs. In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has cited the following rulings:- (i) “ K. Srinivasappa and Ors. Vs. M. Mallamma and Ors. ” reported in “ 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 472 (ii) “ Hemantha Kumar Vs. R. Mahadevaiah and Ors. In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has cited the following rulings:- (i) “ K. Srinivasappa and Ors. Vs. M. Mallamma and Ors. ” reported in “ 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 472 (ii) “ Hemantha Kumar Vs. R. Mahadevaiah and Ors. ” reported in “ (2022) 8 SCC 140 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record as well as the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their submissions. 14. Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides as follows:- “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 satisfied the plaintiff in respect to 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 not 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.] [Explanation.— An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not he deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.]” 15. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that an order of compromise of the suit may be passed by a Court on the basis of any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties. However, in the instant case, there is no separate agreement or compromise deed which is in the writing and signed by both the parties. 16. The Apex Court, in the case of “ Prasanta Kumar Sahoo and Ors. Vs. Charulata sahu and Ors. However, in the instant case, there is no separate agreement or compromise deed which is in the writing and signed by both the parties. 16. The Apex Court, in the case of “ Prasanta Kumar Sahoo and Ors. Vs. Charulata sahu and Ors. (supra)has observed as follows:- “It is now well settled that under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC as it now stands, when a claim in suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, the compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties and there must be a completed agreement between them. To constitute an adjustment, the agreement or compromise must itself be capable of being embodied in a decree.” 17. However, in the instant case, no separate written agreement, signed by the parties is there. Merely, a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC was filed by the counsel of the appellate stating therein that the matter has been amicably compromised in terms of the facts stated in paragraph No. 4 of the said petition. 18. It is interesting to note herein that though the said application under Order 23 Rule 3 is stated to be filed on02.03.2020 which appears from the date mentioned below the signatures of the counsel filing the same, in the first page of the said application. However, if the supporting affidavit filed with the said application is shown to have been notarized before the Notary, one day after the date mentioned below the signatures of the filing Advocate i.e., on 03.03.2020, which also raises doubt regarding the veracity of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent. 19. Be that as it may, this Court is of considered opinion that in this case, there was no lawful compromise agreement in writing signed by both the parties. Even, in paragraph No. 4 of the compromise petition filed by the parties in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020, there is no averment to the effect that both parties have executed a lawful agreement or compromise agreement, in writing, which was signed by both of them. 20. Even, in paragraph No. 4 of the compromise petition filed by the parties in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020, there is no averment to the effect that both parties have executed a lawful agreement or compromise agreement, in writing, which was signed by both of them. 20. This Court is of the considered opinion that when allegation of fraud has been made by the petitioner, the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC has to be strictly interpreted and, accordingly, this Court is of, considered opinion that as the respondent No. 1 has failed to show any written agreement signed by the parties, on the basis of which compromise was arrived at between the parties, there is an error apparent on face of the record which justifies interference with the impugned order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 in connection with RSA No. 150/2017 in exercise of review jurisdiction of this case. Accordingly, the impugned order is required to be interfered with. 21. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.06.2020 passed in I.A.(C) No. 974/2020 is reversed and the said interlocutory application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the order dated 26.06.2020 passed in RSA No. 150/2017 whereby the aforesaid regular second appeal was disposed of on the basis of compromise decree is also set aside and the said RSA No. 150/2017 is restored to file. 22. Registry to list the RSA No. 150/2017 in orders column on a date to be fixed by it. 23. This Review Petition is accordingly allowed.