1. Heard Sri Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, senior advocate for the petitioners and Sri Subhash Kishore Verma for the opposite party.

2. This application is directed against the order dated 23.7.2002 passed by Subordinate Judge, I, Darbhanga, in title suit bearing No. 67 of 2001 by which the court below has rejected the petition of the defendants filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and has held that the title suit filed for setting aside the compromise decree dated 16.11.2000 passed by Subordinate Judge, I, Jamshedpur in title suit bearing No. 91 of 2000 is maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in support of the petition has contended before me that the impugned order suffers from infirmity inasmuch as the same has been passed ignoring the mandatory provisions contained in Order 23 Rule 3(A) of the Code which, inter alia, bars filing of a separate suit for setting aside the compromise decree passed in another suit. He further submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code the forum for questioning the compromise decree is the self same court which passed the