IMPORTANT POINT
Compromise decree--Setting aside of--Challenge to compromise can be entertained by Court passing compromise order and not through separate proceedings in civil suit

H.S.Bhalla, J.

1. By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of three petitions, being Civil Revision Nos. 2385, 2388 and 2387 of 2007 together since the point involved in these petitions is identical in nature. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from Civil Revision No. 2385 of 2007.

2. Having lost battle before the lower court, the petitioners have knocked at the door of this court by filing the instant revision petition by virtue of which, they have challenged the order dated 23.1.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar. The operative part of the impugned order dated 23.1.2007 runs as under :

"In all the afore-mentioned authorities, either there was a civil suitor execution petition or some misc. proceedings are passing an order or ward by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In none of the cases the order was passed on an application filed under Section 151 CPC. In my view, to challenge a judgment and decree passed by the court of competent jurisdiction another civil suit has to be instituted. In other words, the application under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree is not maintainable. A civil suit however is maintainable. For the reasons recorded above the application in hand is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. Announced. 23.1.2007 Sd/- Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hisar."

The brief facts leading to the present case are that respondent, namely, Raja Ram filed a suit for declaration with regard to the disputed land impleading Gulab Chand, Sagar Mal sons of Moti Lal, Ram Parshad (father of the present petitioners), Ram Niwas both sons of Prem Sukh Dass and Laxmi Narain son of Manak Ram as defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. A settlement took place between the parties and by virtue of the aforesaid settlement, Gulab Singh and others have relinquished their interest in terms of cash money. Ultimately, a decree dated 3.5.1983 was passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Hisar, which runs as under :

" Keeping in view of the statement of the defendant(s) the suit of the plaintiff(s) is hereby decreed as prayed for with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court 3.5.1983 Sd/- Senior Sub Judge, Hisar."

3. The petitioners moved an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1983, wherein they have also attached the death certificate of Gulab Chand, Sagar Mal, Ram Parsad, Ram Niwas and Laxmi Narain and categorically pleaded that when the petitioners, who are the sons of Ram Parshad Somani, who has been shown as defendant No. 3 in Civil Suit No.750 of 1983, came to know about the fraud played by the respondent, they moved an application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar with a prayer that the decree dated 3.5.1983 passed in Civil Suit No. 750 of 1983 titled as Raja Ram v. Gulab Chand and others be set aside since the same is result of fraud and misrepresentation, inasmuch as Gulab Chand, Sagar Mat, Ram Prasad, Ram Niwas and Laxmi Narain who were added as defendants and whose land have been grabbed by virtue of the aforesaid decree, never appeared before the Civil Court nor they filed written statement because the aforesaid persons had died long back much prior to the filing of the civil suit by the respondent. However, this application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, was dismissed by the impugned order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

5. I have given my due considerations to the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and I find that it is an admitted case that the decree dated 3.5.1983 was passed on the basis of settlement between the parties.

6. At the outset I may notice that the provisions of Civ