ORDER :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/defendant 5 against the judgment dated 29.1.2008 passed by 14th Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur in Civil Appeal No.6A of 2007, whereby the Appellate Court has set aside the order dated 19.11.2007 passed by 8th Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No.20A of 2007.

2. Facts of the case are that Respondent 2, Vishram Nirala had initially filed a suit, being Civil Suit No.101A of 2002 against the State of Chhattisgarh (Manager/Collector), Shri Radhakrishna Mandir Trust Committee (Respondent 5), Rambishal Sonkar (Respondent 3), Jeevanlal Vishwakarma (Respondent 4) and Ramjas Das Mahant, Priest, Shri Radhakrishna Mandir Trust Committee, Bandhawapara, Raipur claiming right in respect of land bearing khasra No.1090/3, 1122, 1125, 1129, 1130 and 1135 admeasuring area 3.75 acres. The suit was filed claiming injunction and declaration. It was pleaded that Vishram Nirala is in possession of the land and the ancestors of Vishram Nirala had given the land to Shri Radhakrishna Mandir Trust Committee with a condition that the crop yielded in the said land shall be used for management of the temple. It was further pleaded that instead of following the same, the Trust is alienating the said land. Therefore, injunction was claimed that the Trust may be restrained from selling/alienating the land and plaintiff Vishram Nirala be declared as owner of the said land.

3. In the said suit, i.e., Civil Suit No.101A of 2002, the defendants had filed their written statements. Issues were framed. However, during pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a compromise. They settled the dispute among themselves that out of all the lands, khasra No.1135 ad-measuring area 1.46 acres be declared to be in absolute ownership of Vishram Narala and in turn Vishram Nirala will not claim any right in respect of other suit lands. Permission is also accorded by the Registrar, Public Trusts as Annexure A3.

4. On the basis of the said compromise, 6th Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur recorded evidence of the parties and after recording of the evidence, a decree was drawn accordingly vide judgment dated 10.9.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.101A of 2002 (Annexure A4).

5. Subsequently, with the change of members in the trust in the year 2005, a suit, being Civil Suit No.20A of 2007 was filed by Shri Radhakrishna Mandir Trust Committee (Respondent 1) against Vishram Narala, Rambishal Sonkar, Jeevanlal Vishwakarma and the State of Chhattisgarh through Manager/Collector, Shri Radhakrishna Mandir Trust Committee for declaration and injunction. It was prayed that the decree passed in Civil Suit No.101A of 2002 be declared as null and void on the ground that the then Secretary of the trust Rambishal Sonkar with collusion of Vishram Nirala, without obtaining consent from the trust committee, entered into the compromise.

6. In the subsequent suit, i.e., Civil Suit No.20A of 2007, initially an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by defendants Vishram Nirala and Rambishal Sonkar on the ground that the decree passed on the basis of compromise cannot be challenged. The Trial Court, vide order dated 7.7.2005, dismissed the application on the ground that since the copy of the decree of the earlier civil suit was not available, the same can be decided on its merits.

7. Subsequent to the order dated 7.7.2005, the Appellant herein, being the purchaser of the land in question, was arrayed as defendant 5 in Civil Suit No.20A of 2007. After entering appearance, the Appellant/defendant 5 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 3A CPC. The ground urged was that no civil suit will lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree was based was not lawful. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 19.11.2007, 8th Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur dismissed Civil Suit No.20A of 2007 on the ground that no subsequent suit was tenable in view of the