The court affirms that a compromise can be validly recorded even if certain procedural formalities are unmet, requiring an inquiry into its legality before dismissal.

1.The petitioner's mother Rangbai is one of the three daughters of one Setaji Bhimjikhan; the other two being Hirbai and Ladbai. This Rangbai filed a suit for partition of the estate of her father against the heirs of her aforesaid two sisters. Original defendant No. 1 is the son's son and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the son's daughters of the aforesaid Hirbai. Defendant No. 5 is the daughter's daughter of Hirbai while defendants Nos. 6 and 7 are the sons and defendants Nos. 8 and 9 are the daughters of Ladbai. The plaintiff Rangbai died during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the present petitioner was brought on the record as her heir and legal representaive. Similarly original defendant No. 1, Amirkhan Salimkhan, died during the pendency of the suit and his mother Sonbai and his widow Ajubai and has four daughters, Manubai, Kasubai, Ranbai and Rembai, and two sons Fatehmohmed and Hanji, were brought an the record as respondents Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (h), respectively. It should be noted that defendants nos. 2 to 9 supported the plaintiff in her claim for partition of the estate. It was only defendant No. 1, Amirkhan, who contested the suit in his written statement filed in the trial court. After his death his mother Sonbai, who is defendant No. 1 (a) supported the plaintiff's claim after she was brought on record. It was only defendant No. 1 (b), Ajubai, the widow of deceased Amirkhan, who contested the suit after the demise of Amirkhan. It should be further noted that in the suit there was an application by the original plaintiff for appointment of Receiver for the estate of Satajt. That application was rejected by the trial court with the result that the plaintiff had gone in appeal against that order before the District Court Before the appeal reached hearing, it appears that there was a compromise between the parties and the appeal was withdrawn on that ground and it was stated by the parties that the compromise would be produced in the trial court for purposes of getting a decree in terms thereof. When the matter was called out before the trial court, after withdrawal of the appeal, the plaintiff applied for a decree in terms of the award alleged to have been made by the Arbitrator. Original defendant No. 1 (b), Ajubai, filed objections to this application of the original plaintiff. The trial court rejected this application of the plaintiff as the award was illegal since it was obtained in a pending suit without the intervention of the Court. The trial court, therefore, dismissed the application of the plaintiff by its order of July 23, 1975. The plaintiff, therefore, carried the matter in appeal before the District Court at Surendranagar by his Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1975. The District Court agreed with the contention of the plaintiff that the trial court has a power to record the compromise under O. XXIII, R. 3 of the Civil P. C. even though the award might have been obtained in a pending suit without the intervention of the Court. The learned District Judge, however, dismissed the appeal of the original plaintiff because in his view Order XXIII , R. 3 of the Civil P. C. requires that before a compromise or an adjustment can be accepted in a suit by a Court, the same should have been agreed upon and consented to by the parties before the Court. The learned District Judge was also of the view that inasmuch as no permission was granted under Order XXXII , R. 7 of the Civil P. C. to Ajubai, the widow of Amirkhan for entering into the alleged compromise on behalf of the minors, the same was not legal and binding. In that view of the matter therefore the learned District Judge d