( 1. ) THIS civil revision has been filed under section 115 of the civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 2-2-2005 passed by 3rd civil Judge Class II, Narsinghpur in Civil Suit No. 18a/04 whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1 has been rejected.

( 2. ) THE applicant instituted a civil suit for declaration of title regarding the disputed land situated at Mouja Kandeli and Khamaria and also for the decree of issuance of permanent injunction against respondent No. 1 for not to interfere in his peaceful possession and also to restrain him not to alienate the same.

( 3. ) THE respondent No. 1 submitted the written statement denying the most of the averments made in the plaint. The issues were framed. The evidence was being recorded. During the course of trial, the applicant and respondent No. 1 filed the compromise petition on 9-9-2004. Their statements were recorded on the same day. After hearing the arguments, the case was posted for orders on 11-9-2004 but the order could not be passed on that day. The case was adjourned for 27-9-2004. In the meantime, on 23-9-2004, the respondent No. 1 filed an application for cancellation of the compromise petition.

( 4. ) THE applicant filed its reply. The Court directed for an enquiry on application under Order 23, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code and also to adduce evidence of the parties. No any evidence was adduced by the parties. The arguments were heard on 24-1-2005 and the impugned order was passed on 2-2-2005 whereby the application filed by respondent on 23-9-2004 was allowed and the compromise petition was cancelled. Being aggrieved by that order, the instant revision has been filed under section 115, Civil Procedure Code on the grounds mentioned therein.

( 5. ) SHRI Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the compromise petition was filed on 9-9-2004, the evidence of both the parties were recorded. Arguments were also heard. Nothing was to be done by the Court except to pass the order. Therefore, the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction in not passing the decree on the basis of compromise petition and also illegally exercised jurisdiction in allowing the application dated 23-9-2004 cancelling the compromise petition.

( 6. ) ON the other hand, Shri Sheel Nagu, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that the Court must be satisfied prior to passing the decree on the basis of compromise petition and this satisfaction should be continued from filing of the compromise petition till passing the order. The learned counsel has further submitted that after filing the compromise petition, respondent No. 1 came to know that fraud has been played, hence he filed application for cancellation of compromise petition. The trial Court has rightly allowed the application. There is no illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court. Hence, does not call for any interference.

( 7. ) THE main point for consideration in this revision petition is that whether the trial Court has committed any jurisdictional error in allowing the application of respondent No. 1 filed on 23-9-2004 and thereby cancelling the compromise petition filed by the parties.

( 8. ) THERE is no dispute that the compromise petition was filed by both the parties and the evidence were also recorded thereon but before passing the order, respondent No. 1 moved an application on 23-9-2004 wherein it is mentioned that he is not agree on the compromise because the compromise petition was entered with respect to the agricultural land but not to house and other movable property but the same has been included in the compromise petition, written by applicant and his counsel. The conspiracy has been done. The properties mentioned in para 1 of the compromise petition, have not yet been partitioned. If any decision is made, then he will suffer irreparable injury. It is also mentioned that no opportunity was provided to him to read this compromise exhaustively and applicant