1. By this second appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment of the appellate court dated 24th March 2006 whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. Since the second appeal can be preferred only on the substantial question of law in terms of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the appellant in memo of appeal has framed following questions: A. Whether a Decree passed solely on the basis of admissions made in the written statement, admitting the entire claim in the Plaint, can be treated as a Compromise decree B. Whether a Decree, passed as aforesaid (A) can be termed as a Compromise Decree, when there has been no application in writing and signed by the parties, confirming to the mandatory requirements of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC C. Whether a decree can be termed as a compromise decree, when the compromise has not been recorded by the court to is satisfaction, as contemplated by Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC D. Whether a suit challenging a decree (not a compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC) obtained by fraud, is barred under Rule 3 A of Order 23 CPC E. Whether a decree can be passed by a court at Pili Banga, Distt. Hanuman Garh, Rajasthan, in respect of a pr