Petitioner and respondents in both Civil Revision Petitions are same. Both Civil Revision Petitions arise out of common order.

2. Plaintiff is the petitioner and the defendants are the respondents herein. Plaintiff filed the suit for partition against the respondents, who are her mother, brother and sister.

3. Plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.553 and 554 of 2013. I.A.No.553 of 2013 is filed praying to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the documents i.e., compromise agreement and compromise petition as exhibits. I.A.No.554 of 2013 is filed to reopen the suit for marking the documents. These two petitions are filed on the ground that there was an agreement between the parties for resolution of dispute and enclosing the agreement petition is filed under Order XXIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. to record the compromise, but, due to inadvertence, the same could not be marked as documents. Plaintiff submitted that these are the crucial documents for adjudication. Therefore prayed for indulgence of the Court to reopen the case and recall P.W.1 for marking the documents.

4. The claim of the plaintiff is opposed by the defendants contending that the compromise agreement was drafted by the plaintiff by playing fraud and defendants never agreed for such compromise. It is contended that though the suit is of the year 2008 and the compromise memo was drafted on 16.04.2008 and was referred to Lok-Adalat, it was not settled before the Lok-Adalat and therefore, the matter was remitted back to the trial Court. The plaintiff was aware of all the developments and kept quiet all along, allowed recording of the evidence and when the matter is listed for submission of arguments, these petitions are filed only to protract the litigation.

5. Considering the rival submissions, the trial Court dismissed both I.As. Aggrieved by the same, these two C.R.Ps are preferred.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 16.04.2008, plaintiff and defendants have entered into an agreement to resolve pending disputes and on the same day, petition is filed before the trial Court enclosing the copy of the agreement. Since parties have already compromised the issue and filed a petition, to record compromise and to dispose of the suit, matter was referred to Lok-adalat. Learned counsel submits that these documents are vital for proper adjudication of the claim in the suit. Relying on the provision in Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, C.P.C.), learned counsel submits that witness can be recalled at any time and that merely because suit is coming up for arguments, is no ground for not recalling the witness. Thus, the trial court erred in not exercising the discretion vested in Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. Learned counsel further contends that according to Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C., where a petition to compromise is filed along with agreement, but one of the parties to the agreement denied the correctness of the compromise, it is mandatory for the Court to decide the question. Having regard to the provision contained in Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C., the trial Court ought to have decided the question and instead of deciding the question, the I.As filed by the petitioner were erroneously dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the compromise was obtained by playing fraud. Learned counsel submits that believing the husband of the 7th respondent, who is an elderly person, respondents have signed on the blank papers and taking advantage of the respect and regard given to him, after obtaining the signatures on blank papers, husband of 7th respondent created fraudulent compromise deed to suit the convenience of the 7th respondent and the plaintiff. Learned counsel submits that respondents resiled from the said compromise and suit has to be adjudicated on merits without regard to the so called compromise. Learned counsel contends that the