( 1 ) MR. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel for the appellants, had challenged this judgment of affirmance in this second appeal, deciding the maintainability of the suit on the question of forum, on the ground that Order 23 Rule 3 proviso read with the explanation and Rule 3a of the Code of Civil procedure (CPC) would not stand in the way of the maintainability of a suit by persons who were not parties to the suit since compromised when the scope of challenge under Rule 3 proviso read with explanation and Order 43 Rule 1 (a) (ii)or within the scope of Order 21 Rule 101 read with section 47 CPC, had elapsed. The suit would not be barred by reason of the specific provision in the Contract act relating to void and voidable contracts where fraud was alleged in such a circumstances. He had led us through various provisions of CPC as well as the contract Act and the decisions of this Court in Gostd Behari Pramanik vs. Malati Sen, AIR 1985 Cal 379 and Suraj Kumari vs. District Judge, Mirzapur, air 1991 All. 75. Respondents' contention :

( 2 ) MR. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that by virtue of the provisions incorpo