L.N.Mittal, J.

1. This is second appeal by plaintiff who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below because plaintiff failed to lead any evidence in support of her case.

2. The plaintiff by way of suit challenged compromise decree dated 20.3.2003 passed in earlier suit alleging that the compromise was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

4. Without going into merits of the claim of the parties, a question arises whether the suit itself is maintainable in view of bar created by Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC). Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compromise has been challenged on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and therefore, separate suit is maintainable to challenge the compromise decree on this ground. It was also contended that the aggrieved party would be rendered remediless if suit is held to be not maintainable because appeal against compromise decree also does not lie.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC creates absolute bar to filing of separate suit to challenge compro