An independent suit to challenge the validity of a compromise decree is statutorily barred. The aggrieved party must approach the court that passed the compromise decree to seek relief, as that court retains the exclusive jurisdiction to examine the lawfulness and validity of the compromise.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. By way of filing this instant petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short as 'CPC'), the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Weir, District Bharatpur (hereinafter to be referred as learned 'trial Court'), in Civil Suit No. 1/2025 titled as " Ghanshyam Vs. Mukesh and Ors. ", whereby the application preferred by the present petitioners/defendant Nos.1,5,6,7 and 10 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC came to be rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the respondents-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit on 27.11.2024 seeking declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the compromise dated 17.07.1982 and the judgment and decree dated 10.09.1982 passed by Additional Collector, Bayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘Revenue Court’) in Revenue Suit No. 95/1982, be declared null and void and further declaration, that the gift deed dated 31.10.2022 be declared void.

3. The case set up in the plaint is that one Babulal had earlier instituted a revenue suit for declaration of khatedari rights and perpetual injunction against his brother Latoor (Father of the plaintiff-respondent) before the competent Revenue Court, which was decided on the basis of a compromise dated 17.07.1982, culminating into a compromise decree dated 10.09.1982. Consequently, mutation entries were effected in the revenue records in terms of compromise decree. Later on, Babulal executed a gift deed on 31.10.2022 in favour of Defendant Nos.9 and 10. It is an admitted position that during his lifetime, Latoor never challenged the compromise or the compromise decree passed by the learned Revenue Court. After a lapse of more than four decades, the present suit has been instituted by his legal representatives challenging the said compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was obtained by playing fraud on Latoor and necessary parties were not impleaded in the suit. The present petitioners moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending, inter alia, that the suit is barred by law particularly, in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, and is also barred by limitation. The respondents-plaintiffs opposed the said application, contending that the objections raised involve mixed questions of fact and law, which require adjudication after evidence. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 25.02.2026, dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC holding that the issues raised cannot be decided at the threshold and require trial. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error inasmuch as the learned trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent-plaintiffs have challenged the compromise decree/judgment dated 10.09.1982 by way of an independent civil suit, which is expressly prohibited under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC is absolute and operates at the threshold, and therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC without embarking upon a trial.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners further contends that the original decree having been passed in the year 1982, and the suit having been instituted in the year 2024, the same is barred by limitation under Artic