( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order recording a compromise. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,600/- from the defendant-appellant, the Union of India. The sum claimed was in respect of loss incurred for nondelivery of goods delivered to the East Indian Railway. There was correspondence between the parties and during the course of this the Chief Commercial Manager of the E. I. R. wrote to the plaintiffs a letter offering a sum of Rs. 9,441/2/6 in full satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim. This offer was accepted by the plaintiffs and they applied to the Court to record it. The defendant, however, objected to the adjustment being recorded on the ground that after it had made the offer it discovered that it had been procured by the plaintiffs on the basis of a forged beejuk and that, therefore, it was not binding on them. The defendants wanted to produce oral evidence to substantiate its plea of fraud but the lower court was of opinion that this question could not be gone into in those proceedings because the agreement being lawful upon the face of it, it had to be recorded irrespective of whether it could be established that it