{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.75 OF 2008 Madrawati Gangadhar Kshirsagar R/o MIDC, Latur, Tq & Dist-Latur APPLICNAT VERSUS 1. Maruti Arjun Kshirsagar R/o Miskinpura Chowk, Latur 2. Datta Maruti Kshirsagar R/o Miskinpura Chowk, Latur RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.P.Urgunde, Advocate for applicant Mr.S.S.Halkude, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 23rd June 2009 PER COURT: 1. Challenge in this application is to the order passed below Exhibit-16, which are terms of compromise filed before the trial court and were accepted by the trial court. The applicant has challenged the said terms of compromise on the ground that the contents of the same were not explained and read over to her and by playing fraud the terms of compromise were recorded, which {2} was accepted by the courts below. 2. Heard advocate for applicant and respondents. In the light of submissions, perused application Exhibit-16 on which order is passed by the trial court, i.e. terms of compromise. Considering the submissions across the bar and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 02.01.2008, it appears that the suit is filed by the present applicant against the respondents. So far as this compromise deed is concerned it is signed by Mhadravati and Maruti and not by all the parties to the suit. Secondly, after terms of compromise were tendered in the court it is for the court to ascertain as to whether the same is explained to the parties and understood by them. It is the duty of the court to ascertain whether the parties are filing compromise terms with their free will or not or if there is any influence or force used upon them by somebody outsider. Not only these questions to be put to the parties by the court, but the same has also to be reflected in the order passed by the court. By the way in future, there shall not be any objection to the compromise terms filed in the court of law and there is assertion on the part of the court that in reality the parties are filing the compromise terms with their free will and consent and without any outside influence is being used on them to enter into the same. Further, the order should reflect that the Presiding Officer, who has recorded the compromise, himself should be satisfied and accordingly, after his satisfaction, he has to put endorsement to that effect that thus I am satisfied with the {3} compromise terms entered into between the parties to the suit with their free will and consent and without any coercion or influence being used and fraud being played upon them. Thereafter, the court has to record that the parties are identified by their respective advocates and they put signatures in the open court on the compromise terms in its presence and then the decree to be passed in the compromise terms and not the suit should be disposed of for want of prosecution in terms of compromise. When parties enter into compromise and file terms of the same before the Court, the decree has to be drawn in the terms of compromise and not otherwise. On careful perusal of the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that by giving go bye to all the formalities the trial court has passed the order, which gave rise to file this application. Thus, considering the way and manner in which the order is passed by the trial court, the order requires to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. The civil revision application is allowed. The matter is remanded to the trial court to hear afresh on the point as to whether in reality a compromise was entered into between the parties to the proceedings and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The civil revision application stands disposed of accordingly. The parties to appear before the trial court on 24.07.2009. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/cra75-08