IMPORTANT POINT
When the lawfulness of a compromise is challenged it is only that court which passed the decree on basis of the said compromise that can decide the matter. It cannot direct for filing a separate suit.

JUDGMENT

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Can the validity of a decree passed on a compromise be challenged in a separate suit is the short question that falls for determination in this appeal. It arises in the following circumstances:

3. The appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that gift-deed dated 12th August, 1982 executed by one Ramaiah was void and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from alienating the suit schedule property or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff. By its judgment and order dated 25th March, 1991, the Trial Court decreed the suit holding the gift-deed in question to be null and void, hence not binding on the plaintiff-appellant. Defendants No.2 and 3 in the said suit were also directed to demolish the building constructed in the schedule property and surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed against him the respondent filed RFA No.223 of 1991 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. According to the respondent a compromise petition was in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the parties before the High Court in the said appeal settling the dispute amicably. The appellant stoutly disputes that position and asserts that no such comprise was either needed nor was the same ever entered into between the parties. The appellant describes the so-called compromise deed as a forged and fabricated document. The appellant denies that he ever signed any such compromise petition or asked his advocate to file the same before the Court. Even so the High Court had proceeded on the basis that a compromise had indeed taken place between the parties in the light whereof the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. The appellant’s case is that order dated 1st August, 1995 passed by the High Court in RFA NO. 223 of 1991 was the result of fraud played upon the High Court.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1st August, 1995 passed by the High Court, the appellant appears to have filed OS No.5236 of 2005 before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in which the appellant prayed for setting aside of the compromise recorded in the High Court’s order dated 1st August, 1995 and the decree passed on the basis thereof. The defendant-respondent No.1 moved an application in the said suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit in question was barred by Rule 3A of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. By its order dated 11th February, 2011, the City Civil Court, Bangalore, allowed the application filed by the respondent and rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The Court took the view that in the light of the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC inserted w.e.f. 1.2.1997, a party aggrieved of a decree on compromise had to approach the Court that passed the decree to establish that no compromise had taken place between the parties which could provide a basis for the Court to act upon the same. In doing so the Court placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 566.

6. It was after the rejection of the plaint that the appellant filed miscellaneous application IA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 in RFA No.223 of 1991 praying for setting aside of order dated 1st August, 1995 by which the High Court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set aside the decree passed in OS No.5236 of 2005 on the basis of the alleged compromise between the parties. The appellant's case before the High Court was that no such compromise had taken place nor was any compromise petition ever signed by him. It was also alleged that the appellant had given no instructions to his advocate for presenting any compromise pe