K.S. Lodha, J.
1. This a plaintiff's revision The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,410/- against the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise is said to have been arrived at between the parties. The plaintiff filed the compromise dated 13-9-79 in the court on 28-4-80. The learned Munsif is alleged to have held an enquiry whether such a compromise had taken place or not because the defendant denied the same. By his order dated 11-4-83, the learned Munsif observed that the compromise appeared to be suspicious in as much as it was scribed by the counsel for the plaintiff and not by any independent person and that this compromise had not been filed in court for a long time although the case had been adjourned a number of times in between. He, therefore, rejected the plaintiff's application dated 28-4-80 and directed that the case be proceeded with further. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed by the plaintiff.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is agreed by the learned Counsel that the revision may be disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. When a compromise had been filed before the Court and an enquiry had been made whether the compromise had been arrived at or not, the learned Munsif was not justified in not giving a clear finding whether the compromise had been arrived at between the parties and merely on the basis of some suspicion, he could not have refused to record the same. The two grounds on which the learned Munsif thought that the compromise was suspicious were that the compromise was scribed by the learned Counsel , for the plaintiff and it had not been produced before the court immediately. He has not discussed the evidence at all pertaining to the execution of the compromise. His finding that the compromise was suspicious, therefore, cannot be sustained. He should have considered the evidence and should have come to a firm conclusion whether the compromise had been arrived at by the parties and it had been executed by them or not. In the absence of such a finding, the order of the learned Munsif dated 11-4 83 cannot be maintained.
4. Having arrived at this conclusion, I am left with two courses: either to consider the evidence here and arrive at my own findings, or to direct the learned Munsif to do so. The record of the case has not been called and in these circumstances, the latter course appears to be better.
5. I, therefore, aceept this revision, set aside the order of the learned Munsif, Kapasin, dated 11-4-1983 and send the case back to him with a direction that he will consider the evidence pertaining to the alleged compromise and shall then record his finding in accordance with law and proceed with the case accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before him on November 21, 1983. As the matter has been decided at the admission stage. I shall not make any order as to costs.