Parties can not dispute correctness of the court proceeding on record.

(Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the fair and decretal Orders dated 19.3.1996 made in unfiled I.A.No.-/96 in I.A.No. 145 of 1985 in O.S.No. 12 of 1984 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal.)

This Revision Petition is directed against the rejection of unfiled I.A.No.-/96 in I.A.No. 145 of 1985 in O.S.No.12 of 1984 on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2.1. The Plaintiff has filed the Suit in O.S.No.12 of 1984 on the file of Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal, for partition of her 3/4th share. Preliminary decree was passed on 28.2.1988. The Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.145 of 1985 for passing a final decree in terms of the Preliminary Decree. A compromise memo was filed and decree was passed pursuant to the compromise memo. As per the compromise memo, instead of 7½ feet entitled by the Defendant, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant endorsed that the Defendant was entitled to 9 feet width in the total length, for which a sum of Rs.5000/- was assured to be paid as compensation. Rs.3000/- was stated to be paid then and thereby leaving a balance amount of Rs.2000/- which was agreed to be paid within sixty days and if not, with 12% interest.

2.2. Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff challenges the Compromise Decree contending that she did not consent to give 1½ feet in the suit property nor agreed to receive any compensation as stipulated in the compromise memo and that the compromise is a fraud played upon the Court. According to her, only when the Commissioner came to divide the property, she learnt that only 21 feet would be allotted to her and not 22½ feet in total and therefore, filed the application to set aside the compromise decree dated 2.5.1988. That application was rejected, which is impugned in this Revision Petition.

3. Referring to various decisions, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that when the Plaintiff has expressed grievance about the Joint Memo of Compromise, the Court ought to have enquired into the scope of authority of the counsel for the Plaintiff. Assailing the impugned Order, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the lower Court ought to have numbered the application and decided the matter on merits. Submitting that the signature of the parties in the Joint Compromise memo and satisfaction of the Court is very much essential, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon number of decisions.

4. Countering the arguments, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that it is not open to the Plaintiff to challenge the compromise Decree nearly after eight years. It was further submitted that when the compromise is lawful, the Plaintiff cannot challenge the same and the alleged fraud has no basis.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side.

6. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner placed reliance upon the decision - Gurpreet Singh's case, - 1988 (1) SCC 270 to contend that in the absence of compliance with the provisions contained in Or.23 R.3 CPC, Final Decree cannot be sustained. For proper appreciation of the contentions advanced, firstly, it is necessary to refer to the Law on the subject. In Gurpreet Singh's case, - 1988 (1) SCC 270, the Supreme Court has explained the object and purport of Or.23 R.3 CPC by laying emphasis on the words "in writing and signed by the parties" to be necessitated in order to prevent false and frivolous pleas that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful Agreement or compromise, with a view to delay the proceedings in the suit.

7. Referring to the objects and reasons of Or.23, R.3 CPC, in Gurpreet Singh's case, - 1988 (1) SCC 270, the Supreme Court has held as under:

"10. Under Rule 3 as it now stands, when a claim in suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful Agreement or compromise, the co