JUDGMENT :

SUDESH BANSAL, J.

1. By way of this appeal, Appellant-defendant No. 1 has assailed the order dated 30.01.2018 whereby and whereunder the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 19, (Head-quarter Sanganer), Jaipur Metropolitan, decreed the Civil Suit No. 93/2017 according to the compromise and a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of respondent No. 1/plaintiff and against the appellant and respondent No. 2 (defendant Nos. 1 and 2).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though as per Section 96(3) CPC, no appeal shall lie from the decree passed by the court with consent of parties, however, the legislature has added provision of Order 43 Rule 1/A w.e.f. 01.02.1974 in the Code of Civil Procedure and as per this provision, appellant is entitled to challenge the impugned decree passed on the basis of a compromise on the ground that the compromise should or should not have been recorded. Counsel for the appellant contends that the compromise is not lawful and further fraud has been played with the appellant by the respondents (plaintiff and defendant No. 2). Respondents were in connivance against the appellant and have succeeded in procuring the decree dated 30.01.2018, on the basis of compromise. The compromise & the order passed on the basis of compromise deed are illegal and contrary to law and also suffer by fraud and not acceptable to appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant could have also challenged the compromise before the trial court by virtue of proviso of Order 23 Rule 3 but appellant has a right to assail the compromise order by way of appeal also. The appellant has opted the remedy of appeal which should be entertained, heard and decided on merits. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in case of Banwari Lal vs. Smt. Chando Devi, (1993) 1 SCC 581.

4. Since there is a delay of about 2 years and 8 months in filing this appeal, an application (No. 01/2021) under Section 5 of Limitation Act, has been filed by appellant. Respondent No. 01/plaintiff has filed reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and opposed the same. The counsel for respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 supported the stand of respondent No. 1/plaintiff and orally opposed the application for seeking condonation of delay.

5. Appellant has also filed an another application (2/2021) under Section 149 of CPC, to make up the deficit court fees and to condone the delay in filing deficit court fees.

6. Appellant has also filed other two applications (01/2022 and 02/2022) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce certain additional documents on record for consideration at the time of hearing this appeal. The respondent-plaintiff has filed reply to one of the application.

7. This court issued notices to respondents and after service of notices, both respondents have appeared.

8. The record of trial court has also been summoned.

9. Heard counsel for both parties in detail, perused the impugned order dated 30.1.2018, the compromise deed and the other documents and material available on record.

10. The brief facts of case are that the appellant was khatedar and possession holder of agriculture land bearing khasra No. 35 at Village Teelawal, Sanganer, Jaipur over an area of 16.664 aer. The appellant at one point of time executed registered sale deed dated 10.03.2011 in favour of respondent No. 2 against a sum of Rs. 76,91,200/- but later on the sale deed was amended on 13.03.2011, part of sale consideration of Rs. 42,75,200/- was refunded to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter due to some brawl between appellant and his sons for execution of the sale deed, the appellant and respondent No. 2, executed an another agreement of consent deed dated 14.3.2011, through which they agreed to cancel the sale and agreed to refund the remaining balance sale amount. According to appellant, he has refunded