Civil Revision No. 43 of 2010. 01.06.2011. Present: Mr. S.D.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood,Advocate with Mr.S.S.Sood, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 03.04.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nadaun in C.M.A. No. 167 of 2010 in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2005, titled as ‘Prem Nath and Others versus Pirthi and Another’. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Court below has erred in rejecting the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the matter has been compromised between the parties. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned Court below has erred in coming to the conclusion that the parties have not compromised, it was only a proposal. I have gone through the document dated 15.11.2008 vide which according to the petitioners the dispute was compromised. No doubt, the title of the document is compromise deed, but in the body of the document it has been stated that there is no dispute and claims between the parties and everything has been settled. The entire document is to be read. There is nothing in the document dated 15.11.2008 that suit is to be decreed or dismissed or disposed of in a particular manner or in terms of compromise. The document dated 15.11.2008 at the most is ordinary agreement and not a compromise to dispose of the suit in a particular manner. The learned Court below has rightly appreciated the material on record. There is no error of jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. June 1, 2011. (krt)