misplaced. The said judgment deals with a case where a decree had already been passed on the basis of a compromise. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the case of R. Rajanna (supra) , however, the said case would have no applicability to the facts of the present case inasmuch as there is no decree which was passed and it was prior to the suit being decreed in terms of the compromise that an application was filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners herein for withdrawal of their statements qua the compromise. The second argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent is that once allegations of fraud have been made qua the compromise, the same have to be proved in accordance with law. The said argument is noticed only to be rejected. The allegations of fraud when made in a suit are to be proved in accordance with law. In the present case the defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners herein had entered into a compromise and later filed an application for withdrawal of their consent therefor on the ground that a fraud has been committed upon them. In such a scenario, when the defendant Nos.1 and 2-petitioners herein are well within their rights to withdraw their consent for the compromise prior to the final decree being passed on the basis of compromise, there would be no requirement to further go into the allegations of fraud made by them. Compromise is a voluntary process which is entered into by both the parties and the Court cannot impose the same on a party. Before an order is passed disposing off the matter on the basis of a compromise, either of the parties i.e. the plaintiff or the defendant is well within their rights to withdraw their consent and a party cannot be compelled to enter into a compromise only because a statement in
