The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit challenging a compromise decree on the ground of fraud or illegality is not maintainable under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the Sub-Judge-VII, Patna in Title Suit No. 377/2005 whereby the prayer of the defendant-petitioner to declare that the suit is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) had been rejected.

2. In the Title Suit No. 140/2005, a compromise was entered into and. accordingly, a decree was drawn after accepting the compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code.

3. The plaintiffs-opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 377/2005 challenging the aforesaid decree on the ground that the decree has been obtained by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs and, thus, shall be set aside as the same was not lawful. A petition had been filed by the defendant- petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code stating therein that the suit challenging the decree drawn on the basis of the compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code.

4. The trial court has rejected the prayer and proceeded further in the title suit, it has been informed by the opposite parties that the detendants had appeared in the suit concerned, filed written statement, issues had been framed and several witnesses had also been examined by the trial court.

5. I have heard the parties and perused the records of this case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is specific bar under the provisions as contained in Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code to the effect that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. Thus, the contention is that the trial court had erred in dismissing the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and in proceeding further in the title suit.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in Banwarl Lal vs. Smt. Chando Devi & Anr., (AIR 1993 SC 1139). The Apex Court, while allowing the appeal preferred against the order of the High Court in revision application filed by the respondent holding that the trial court could not have entertained the application filed on behalf of the appellant for recall of the order regarding a compromise entered between the appellant and the respondent, had held that a party challenging a compromise can file a petition under proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXIII, or an appeal under Section 96(1) of the Code, in which he can question the validity of the compromise in view of Rule 1A of Order XLIII of the Code.

8. Learned counsel had next placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Guru Charan Singh & Ors. vs. Mahatam Singh & Anr. [2006(3) PLJR 345]. This Court has held in the aforesaid decision that the title suit challenging a decree drawn on the basis of compromise, on the ground of fraud etc. would not be maintainable in view of the clear bar created under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Jaimangal Kr. & Anr. vs. Dinesh Yadav & Anr. [2005(1) BBCJ V- 189] [: 2005(1) PLJR 1] wherein this Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Banwari Lal vs. Smt. Chando Devi & Anr. (supra) had held that conjoint reading of the two rules, i.e., Rules 3 and 3A of Order XXIII, would make it crystal clear that any illegality including fraud committed in regard to the compromise decree could be questioned in the same court which has passed the compromise decree by filing miscellaneous case and not by separate suit in other court.

10. Thus, the submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the suit was not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and followed by this Court as aforesaid.

11. To appreciate and consider the point of controversy it would be apt to quote Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure as under:-

"9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.- The Courts s