IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11876 of 2011 Salahuddin Ansari & Ors Versus Abdul Ahad & Ors ----------- 02. 26.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 25.03.2011 passed by Munsif, Ist, Siwan in Title Suit No.153 of 2002 whereby the learned Court below refused to record the compromise application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the parties signed the compromise application, they are estopped from challenging the same. According to the learned counsel, the learned Court below should have verified the allegation made by the respondents that their signature was obtained on blank paper by calling for the Pleader Commissioner and / or Advocates of the parties and then should have recorded the compromise. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has considered the objection raised by the respondents to the Pleader Commissioner’s report and also 2 found that the Pleader Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction and also considered that the respondent is not agreeing to the compromise alleging that on white paper by the Pleader Commissioner obtained his signature. The learned Court below also found that there are contradictions in the Pleader Commissioner’s report. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below held that it is not possible to record the compromise and, therefore, set aside the Pleader Commissioner’s report and refused to record the compromise. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the sufficiency or otherwise, i.e., adequacy or inadequacy of the reasoning of the trial Court cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)