1. The petitioners have filed this revision under section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 2.3.2015 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Astha in Civil Suit No.RCS 2-A/2012.

2. Respondent No.1 had filed a civil suit for declaring the judgment and compromise decree dated 31.10.2008, as not binding on the plaintiff and consequential relief of injunction.

3. The petitioners/defendants No.11, 17 and 18 filed their written statement and also filed an application under Order 23 rule 3A of CPC, stating that the suit is not maintainable as the compromise decree cannot be challenged by way of separate suit. The Court below had framed the issues and decided the preliminary issue “whether the suit is maintainable” and “whether the Court is having the jurisdiction to hear the suit”. The learned Court below had decided both the issues in favour of the respondents and close the right of the petitioners to file the written statement. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have filed the present revision.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that the trial Court has erred in holding that as the previous Court was not competent to decide the suit and therefore, the suit which is filed before this Court is competent to decide the same. He further submits that as per the provisions of Order 23 rule 3A of the CPC, the suit for setting aside the compromise decree is maintainable only before the Court who passed the compromise decree and not to any other Court. He further argues that the respondents had valued the suit on the basis of sale consideration of the year 2010. He further relied on the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) by LR v. Rajinder Singh and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2628, as well as the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Brajesh Kumar Awasthi and another v. State of M.P. and others, reported in AIR 2007 M.P. 139.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the order passed by the trial Court. He submits that the previous Court which have passed the compromise decree is not competent to decide the suit and, therefore, the subsequent suit for setting aside the compromise decree is not maintainable before the previous Court. He submits that looking to the sale consideration of sale deeds i.e. 95,000/- and 75,000/- respectively, the Court of Civil Judge Class-I was not competent to decide the suit. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the trial Court has not committed any error in deciding this preliminary issue in favour of the respondent.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the order passed by the trial Court. Rule 3 of Order 23 deals with withdrawal and adjustment of the suits. The said rules reads as under :-

(3) Compromise of suit – 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 as 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 that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but not 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.]

7. As per the said rule the parties can entered into the compromise wholly or in part by any lawful agreement and compromise [in writing and signed by the parties]. The Court