A consent decree operates as an estoppel and can only be set aside by the Court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under the proviso to R.3 of O.23. A fresh suit is barred to challenge the compromise in a separate suit.

1. This CRP is filed to set aside the order dated 19.7.2012 on IA-2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w 151 of CPC in O.S.No.114/2011 on the file of the Learned Civil Judge at Lingasugur.

2. The facts briefly stated; that on 15.4.2011, Lok Adalath passed the decree based on the compromise in O.S.No.60/2011, subsequently the affected party Smt. Khamarjaha Begum filed a suit i.e. O.S.No.114/2011 seeking to declare the compromise decree as null an d void. Petitioner herein/Azagar Begum being the defendant put her appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w 151 of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff/Khamarjaha Begum only after reading the terms and conditions of the compromise petition had presented the same before the Lok Adalath, consequently, the compromise petition was allowed and the award was passed. The suit is nothing but for cancellation of the compromise decree which is against provision of law. The learned trial Court after hearing both has rejected the application.

3. Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the respondent/Azagar Begum being a signatory to the compromise petition and personally present before the Lok Adalath and having admitted the contents of the compromise petition now cannot maintain a separate suit challenging the validity decree passed in Lok Adalath, if at all she is aggrieved by the said decree passed in pursuance of the compromise petition, she has to file an application under Section 151 of CPC before the very same forum and challenge the compromise petition. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2006 SC 2628 in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) by LR V/s Rajinder Singh and Others, a separate suit is not maintainable and the impugned order is not legal and same is liable to be set aside.

4. Sri R.S.Sidhapurkar, learned Counsel for the respondent in reply submits that she is seeking for declaration in O.S.No.114/2011 to declare the decree passed in O.S.No.60/2011 as null and void since fraud was played on her while taking her signature on the compromise petition. The defendant in the said suit under misrepresentation and fraud managed to obtain her signature on the compromise petition. Except filing an original suit she has no any other recourse to challenge the decree obtained by playing fraud on her.

5. Having heard the both sides the sole point which arises for my consideration is; Whether a party to a compromise decree can challenge the same by filing a separate suit? The dispute between the parties is in respect of an immovable property. The respondent herein claims to be the owner in possession of the property. She had dispute in respect of the said property with the respondent herein. By the intervention of the elders of the village the matter was settled. To comply the terms of settlement, the respondent/Azagar Begum filed a suit in O.S.No.60/2011 before the Court. Since petitioner was an illiterate lady she yielded to the misrepresentation made by the mediators and signed the compromise petition before the Lok Adalath, the contents of the compromise was never read over to her. After obtaining the decree Khamarjaha Begum and her husband remained absent from the village. Under the guise of the compromise decree the respondent encroached her land hence she filed declaratory suit in O.S.No.114/2011.

6. The matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2006 SC 2628, The Apex Court while elaborating the amended provision of O. 23 has summed up thus;

The position that emerges from the amended provisions of O.23, can be summed up thus:

(1) No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree having regard to the specific bar contained in S.96(3), CPC;

(ii) No appeal is maintainable against the order of the Court recording the compromise (or refusing to record a compromise) in view of the deletion of C1.(m). R.1, O.43:

(iii) No independent suit c