O R D E R

This revision is directed against an order, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Order VII rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., on the ground that the suit is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3 (A) of C.P.C., 2. The original suit in O.S.No.780 of 2017 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking to set aside the decree that was passed on the basis of the compromise in O.S.No.89 of 2006. The suit in O.S.No.89 of 2006 was one for partition of the estate of one Archunan. A compromise decree came to be passed in the said suit on the basis of the compromise memo filed by the parties on 22.03.2017. On 17.11.2017, the plaintiffs in the present suit who are the legal heirs of one Suryanarayanan, who happened to be the 1st defendant in the said suit, sought for setting aside the said decree, claiming that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud. According to the plaintiffs, the said Suryanarayanan and his counsel Mr.V.Subramanian did not appear before the Court on the date when the compromise decree was passed. According to the plaintiffs, Suryanarayanan was impersonated by another person and a new counsel counsel had appeared for him. It is also claimed that the land that is classifi