The compromise must be lawful and in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

Abhay M. Naik, J.

1. Short facts involved herein are that deceased Radheshyam was accompanying a Barat in a tractor bearing Registration No. 4135 MKA and trolly No. 4136 MKA on 22-6-1991 which was owned by respondent No. 2 and was being driven by respondent No. 1 at the relevant time in rash and negligent manner. The driver could not control the tractor with the result that the trolly turned turtle on right side. Radheshyam received severe injuries and ultimately succumbed to death due to them.

2. Tijauwa, widow aged about 30 years of Radheshyam with her four children aged about 7, 5, 3 and 1 respectively, submitted a claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- . Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after being served gave appearance through lawyer and sought time on 3-12-1991 for filing written statement.

3. On 3-12-1991, a compromise application was submitted mentioning therein that the tractor was not insured and the owner of the tractor, trolly was not in a position to contest the claim case. Two respectable persons of village Khera fixed the amount of compromise at Rs. 35,000/- . Out of the settled amount Rs. 20,000/- on 2-12-1991 and remaining amount was paid on 2-12-1991. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the claim case was made on the basis of said compromise.

4. It is pertinent to note here that the claimant/appellant No. 1 being illiterate put thumb impression on the compromise application whereas respondents No. 1 and 2 put their signatures. Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal, Rewa ignoring the minority of the claimants/appellants No. 2 to 5 found that the compromise was proper and accepted it. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed in fully satisfaction vide order dated 3-12-1991.

5. Thereafter an application under Order 47, Rule 1 and section 151 of Civil Procedure Code was submitted by the claimants/appellants with an allegation that the claimant/appellant No. 1 was an illiterate lady. She was not apprised of the factum of alleged compromise. No amount was paid to her in the compromise since no compromise was settled/agreed by her. The entire action of the alleged compromise was given effect to in a fraudulent manner by the counsel of the appellants namely Shri J.P. Dwivedi. This apart, claimants No. 2 to 5 were minor and no leave was obtained for entering into compromise on behalf of them under Order 32, Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, it was prayed that the order dated 3-12-1991 passed in Claim Case No. 107/91 may be quashed and claim case may be decided on merits. Application for review was opposed by the respondents. Learned Claims Tribunal vide order dated 8-4-1993 held that the claimants shall have to institute a suit for setting aside the compromise. Review application was dismissed on the ground that no case for review was made out and minors would have the only recourse of instituting a separate suit for setting aside the compromise order. Aggrieved by the orders dated 3-12-1991 and 8-4-1993, the present appeal has been preferred for their quashment.

6. Shri U.K. Sharma, learned Sr. counsel and Shri S.K. Garg addressed this Court on merits of the appeal.

7. Considered the submissions and perused the record.

8. Claims Tribunal, Rewa has passed the pervious order dated 3-12-1991 on the basis of compromise and subsequent order on 8-4-1993 on the ground that the only remedy to the minors is to avoid the compromise by way of instituting a separate suit and that no case for review has been made out. Subsequent order seems to have been passed in the light of the provisions contained in Order 23, Rule 3-A of Civil Procedure Code which reads as under:

3.A. Bar to suit. -- No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.

9. Aforesaid provision does not create an absolute bar against institution of a suit to set aside the compromise decree. It merely puts an embargo on the parties to dispute co