The maintainability of a petition by a third party assailing an order recording compromise between the parties to the suit on the ground of fraud and further the jurisdiction of the Court to recall the said order on the basis of the finding of fraud are the core questions arising for determination in this revision application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties have been heard at length.

2. Indisputably, the T.P.S. No. 1121 1986 was filed by the Petitioner No.1 of this revision application as sole plaintiff seeking the relief for partition of his 115th share in the suit properties. He impleaded his father, mother and two brothers as defendants and asserted that they were the members of a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshra law and the suit properties comprising movable and immovable properties were their ancestral joint family properties in which he had got 1/5th share. In this suit a compromise petition was filed by the parties and by order dated 22.5.1987 the learned court below accepted the compromise petition and the suit was decreed in the terms of the said compromise. Thereafter by order dated 15.1.1988 the final decree was also passed.

3. Subsequently a petition under Section 151 and Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. was filed by the opposite parties in the suit praying to recall the order dated 22.5.1987 and 15.1.1988 by which the preliminary decree and final decree had been passed on the basis of compromise' alleging the said compromise to be unlawful and fraudulent and further praying to restore the suit to its original file and number. The Misc Case No. 4/06 was registered on the basis of this petition and by the impugned order dated 29.6.2010 the learned court below after considering the cases of the parties and the rival evidence has found and held the compromise decree to be vitiated by fraud perpetrated by the parties to the suit, set aside the orders dated 2.5.1987 and 15.1.1988 by which the preliminary and final decree respectively were passed and restored the said T.P.S. No.112/1986 to its original file and number.

4. The relevant case of the Applicants of the Misc. Case No. 4/06 (the opposite parties in this revision application) is that the defendant no. 1 Chandeshwar Prasad Singh of T.P.S. No. 112/1986 had four sons namely, Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma, Ashok Kumar, Satyendra Kumar @ Rajeev Ranjan and Ashwini Kumar out of whom Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma died in the year 2004 leaving behind the Applicants who are his widow, two sons and one daughter as his heirs and legal representatives to the estate left by him. It has been further stated that Chandeshwar Prasad Singh also died on 21.8.2006 leaving behind the Applicants also as his heirs and legal representatives besides others and during the Shradh ceremony of Chandeshwar Prasad Singh the Applicants came to know for the first time' hat the entire joint family properties had already been partitioned during the lifetime of Chandeshwar Prasad Singh by the Court in a suit of the year 1986 itself and the Applicants had now no share in the joint family properties. On enquiry thereafter the Applicants on 13.10.2006 could get the knowledge of the T.P.S. No. 112/1986 and the compromise decree passed therein from the Court of Sub-Judge-II, Patna. it is the case of the Applicants that on inspection of the records of the suit, which was made available to them on 23.10.2006, they came to know that the said suit was filed without impleading Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma and his two sons who were coparceners in the suit properties and a decree on the basis of compromise by the parties to the suit had been obtained. The Applicants claimed that they had definite share in the suit properties mentioned in the schedules of the plaint of T.P.S. No. 112/1986 but the parties to the suit by misrepresenting, concealing and suppressing the material fact regarding existence of Surendra Kumar @ Satyapal Verma and his two sons as coparceners obtain