The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit challenging a decree based on compromise is not maintainable under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. This civil revision application has been placed before us as a result of reference having been made by one of us (S.N. Hussain, J).

2. The reference has been made on the point as to whether when a decree passed on the basis of compromise is challenged on the ground of fraud etc. by filing a suit, the same is maintainable or not in view of clear bar created under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit challenging the decree based on compromise recorded in Partition Suit No. 17 of 1956 on the ground of fraud. The defendant petitioner appeared in the suit and challenged the maintainability of the suit in view of the provision contained under Order XXIII Rule 3 and 3A of the Code. The trial court held that the suit is maintainable and negatived the objection raised by the defendant petitioner.

4. The said order of the court below has been challenged by the defendant petitioner in the instant civil revision application and when the matter was placed before one of us (S.N. Hussain, J), the judgments of this Court taking contrary view were placed and thereafter the matter has been referred to for decision on the aforesaid point.

5. It appears that judgments directly on the point were not referred to before one of us (S.N. Hussain, J) as a result of which reference was necessitated.

6. The point raised in this case has already been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lagandeo Singh V/s. Satyadeo Singh and Ors. reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 184 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Banwari Lal V/s. Smt. Chando Devi (through L.R.) and Anr. reported in 1993 (1) PLJR (SC) 21.

7. Prior to amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, there was remedy of appeal against an order passed with regard to adjustment of compromise under Order XLIII Rule (1)(m) of the Code, Now after amendment of the Code, by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976), the same has been deleted and Order XLIII Rule 1-A , Sub-rule (2) has been inserted which provides that in an appeal against a decree passed in a suit after recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should or should not have been recorded. It is relevant to quote Order XXIII Rule 3 and 3A of the Code.

3. Compromise of suit, Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by the parties], or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith [so far as it relates to the parties to the suit whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject matter of the suit]. [Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or Satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be Recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.] [Explanation- An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful Within the meaning of this rule.] 3A. Bar to suit.- No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.

8. According to proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the Code, if it is alleged by one party or denied by other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been; arrived at, the Court shall decide the question and the explanation provides that an agreement or c