JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 11.08.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhadrak in Civil Revision No. 04 of 2011. By the said order, learned revisional court allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 8.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in I.A. No.375 of 2010 filed under Order 23 Rule 3(A) CPC and remitted the matter back for de novo enquiry.

2. Opposite party nos.1 & 2 as plaintiffs instituted C.S. No. 105 of 2009-I in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak for partition of the suit schedule property impleading the petitioner as defendant. During pendency of the suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, a compromise petition was filed in the Lok Adalat. Thereafter, the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise. While matter stood thus, plaintiff no.1 filed an application to set aside the compromise on the ground of fraud. The defendant objected to the same. Learned trial court rejected the same. Challenging the same, plaintiff no.1 filed Civil Revision No. 04 of 2011 before the learned District Judge, Bhadrak. The learned Revisional Court set aside the order dated 8.7.2011 and remitted the matter back to the learned trial court for disposal of I.A. No. 375 of 2010.

3. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

4. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that against the order dated 8.7.2011 passed by the learned trial court, the revision is not maintainable. According to him in view of proviso to Section 115 CPC if the order in favour of a party applying for revision would have given finality to the suit or other proceeding, then only the revision is maintainable.

5. Per contra, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite parties, submits that since fraud has been played in the court, an application was filed in the court below to set aside the compromise petition. In such an eventuality, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC in the same court or file an appeal. Thus the learned trial court is justified in rejecting the application under Order 23 Rule 3(A) CPC.

6. The seminal question that hinges for consideration is what is the remedy available to the party aggrieved when a question relating to lawfulness of the agreement or compromise is raised before the Court that passed the decree on the basis of any such agreement or compromise ?

7. Order 23 Rule 3(A) CPC is the hub of issue. The same reads as under:-

“Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit :

Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other than an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment.

Explanation : An agreement or compromise which is void or avoidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.

8. In R.Rajanna v. S.R. Venkataswamy and others, (2014) 15 SCC 471, the apex Court held thus;

“10. It is manifest from a plain reading of the above that in terms of the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 where one party al