The defendants are the petitioners herein, and the revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district in I.A.No.1217 of 2001 in O.S.No.430 of 2001, dated 16.04.2003 under which an application filed by the defendants to dismiss the suit as not maintainable was rejected.

2. It is stated that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of cancellation of a compromise decree that was passed in an earlier suit between the parties i.e., O.S.No.452 of 1991, on the ground of misrepresentation, fraud and coercion. It is stated that the said suit was filed for permanent injunction where during the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs therein have agreed to receive certain amounts from the defendants and a compromise was affected as per which the plaintiffs have given up their rights over the suit schedule property. Alleging that fraud, misrepresentation and coercion have been played in obtaining such compromise decree, the present suit is filed seeking cancellation of the said compromise decree dated 3.7.1998 passed in O.S.No. 452 of 1991. The defendants in whose favour the compromise decree was passed filed the present application contending that a separate suit for cancellation of a decree that was passed earlier could not be filed in terms of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the CPC.

3. The said petition was contested by the respondents/plaintiffs relying upon the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The Court below relying upon the Judgments relied upon by the respondents/ plaintiffs and distinguishing the judgment of the Supreme Court in BANWARI LAL V. CHANDO DEVI(1) rejected the application filed by the present petitioners. Aggrieved by that, the present revision is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court below has committed grave error in not taking into account the amended provisions of the CPC, which prohibit the institution of a separate suit, though such remedy was available prior to the amendment made by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976. The learned counsel contended that though the petitioners relied upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi (1 supra), where the Apex Court had considered the relevant amended provisions and laid down the law that after the amendment, no separate suit is maintainable. But, however, the Court below erroneously distinguished the said judgment and relied upon the old Judgments, which are rendered prior to the said amendments brought to the CPC. Therefore, the learned counsel sought to set aside the order passed by the Court below and for allowing the application holding that the suit is not maintainable.

5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, sought to sustain the impugned order. It is contended by the learned counsel that the suit is filed in terms of S.31 of the Specific Relief Act seeking cancellation of the compromise decree that was passed in the earlier suit for which the remedy is only a separate suit and not an application as was contended by the petitioners. The learned counsel reiterated and relied upon the Judgments that are relied upon before the lower Court and sought to sustain the impugned order.

6. From the above rival contentions, the issue to be considered in this revision is whether a separate suit is maintainable seeking to set aside the compromise decree that was passed in an earlier suit?

7. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XXIII of the CPC deals with withdrawal and adjustment of suits. Rule-1 contemplates withdrawal of the suit or abandonment of even part of the claim either with reference to the subject or with reference to the defendants, for which the plaintiffs are obligated to file appropriate application on which an order has to be passed by the Court on being satisfied, and wherev