A suit to set aside a compromise decree is barred under Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code, and the aggrieved persons only have the remedy of filing a petition under section 151 of the Code.

Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. However, no body appears on behalf of the opposite parties despite their appearance. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated26.7.1990, passed by the 3rd Additional Munsif, motihari, in T. S. No.55 of 1987, holding that the suit is not barred under Order 23 rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ).

2. It appears that a compromise decree was passed in the earlier partition suit and Mohan Prasad, one of the parties to the compromise decree brought a suit being Title suit no.55 of 1987 nor setting aside the compromise decree on the ground of fraud. The defendants-petitioner pursuant to summons appeared in the suit and raised question of maintainability of the suit under Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code. The question was decided by the learned court below against the petitioners and held that the suit was maintainable.

3. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that ex facie against the compromise decree no suit could have been brought in view of Order 23 Rule 3a of the code.

4. I have gone through the order impugned. In view of the specific provision as contemplated under Order 23 Rule 3a of the Code a suit to set aside the compromise decree is barred. In such a situation, (the aggrieved persons had only the remedy by way of filing a petition under section 151 of the Code. In the case at hand admittedly no such petition was filed, rather the suit was brought by opposite party no.1 Mohan Prasad. A learned single judge of this Court in the case of Tarkeshwar Lal tarkeshwar Prasad vrs. Sudama prasad and Others, reported in 1983 B. B. C. J.523, has held that for setting aside the compromise decree a petition under section 151 of the Code was maintainable and no suit can be brought.

5. This being the situation the learned court below has committed jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned. The order impugned, therefore, is not sustainable in law. This application, therefore, is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. No order as to costs.