The duty of the Court to reject the plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action or if it is beyond the Court's jurisdiction, and the limitations on challenging a compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3A were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

1. By this second appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment of the appellate court dated 24th March 2006 whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. Since the second appeal can be preferred only on the substantial question of law in terms of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the appellant in memo of appeal has framed following questions: A. Whether a Decree passed solely on the basis of admissions made in the written statement, admitting the entire claim in the Plaint, can be treated as a Compromise decree B. Whether a Decree, passed as aforesaid (A) can be termed as a Compromise Decree, when there has been no application in writing and signed by the parties, confirming to the mandatory requirements of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC C. Whether a decree can be termed as a compromise decree, when the compromise has not been recorded by the court to is satisfaction, as contemplated by Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC D. Whether a suit challenging a decree (not a compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC) obtained by fraud, is barred under Rule 3 A of Order 23 CPC E. Whether a decree can be passed by a court at Pili Banga, Distt. Hanuman Garh, Rajasthan, in respect of a property situated in Delhi and would such a decree be not a decree, without jurisdiction and a nullity and would be coram non judis F. Whether a decree can be passed on the basis of an alleged family settlement, which is though forged but otherwise written on plaint sheet of paper and not registered and parties to the said alleged settlement are not part of the same family and have no antecedent, title, claim or interest in the said property G. Whether the court can dismiss a suit on the ground of jurisdiction, when neither such an issue arose from the pleadings nor the court framed such an issue

2. It would be necessary to have a brief overview of the facts before considering whether any of the questions raised by the appellant in this appeal are really questions of law and if they arise or not. Respondent No.2 Surendra Kumar had filed a suit before the Civil Court, Pilli Banga, Hanuman Garh, Rajasthan pleading therein that there was a family settlement in respect of the joint properties belonging to parties entered into on 5th November 1993 between respondent No.2 and the present appellant and respondent No.1 Ravi Setia. The subject matter of this settlement were properties in Delhi and Rajasthan. He wanted a declaration from the Court that the parties had become owners of the properties as given in the family settlement by virtue of family settlement and the property in Delhi be divided in terms of the settlement and given to the respective owners. During the pendency of this suit, a compromise decree was passed on the basis of the statements made by the plaintiffs and the attorney of the present appellant in the court. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pilli Banga, Rajasthan, decreed the suit in terms of the compromise after recording statements of parties/their attornies passing following order, The suit is decreed as per the family settlement between the parties and the family settlement shall form part of the decree and the decree sheet be prepared.

3. The appellant herein filed a suit in Delhi for declaration and cancellation of documents and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Delhi seeking a declaration that the family settlement dated 5th November 1993 was null and void and the decree dated 12th December 1996 passed in Civil Case No. 25 of 1996 by the Civil Judge, District Hanuman Garh, Rajasthan was invalid and null and void; the respondent No.1 and 2 be restrained from acting on the family settlement and the decree. The learned Civil Judge, Delhi vide its judgment came to conclusion that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Judge, Delhi in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC. The remedy available for the appellant was to move an application under proviso of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC before the Court who passed