This Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)

Heard Mr.Srikanth Hari Haran, learned counsel representing Mr.G.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.K.Waghray, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are not necessary parties and the said fact was mentioned in the cause title of the appeal itself.

2. Appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.173 of 2002 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

She has filed the said suit seeking the following reliefs:

i) Canceling the alleged compromise judgment and decree in O.S.No.1706 of 1994, dated 06.03.1995 passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad;

ii) Declaration that the alleged irrevocable general power of attorney and the alleged Deed of Assignment, both dated 27.12.1991 are not at all binding upon the plaintiff;

iii) Grant a consequential relief of injunction restraining the Defendant Nos.4 and 5/"Defendants 4 to 10" herein from disbursing any sum or sums whatsoever towards, the alleged entitlement of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from the actual entitlement of the plaintiff to either the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 or any other person or persons claiming through them;

iv) Direct the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.1,13,59,931/- (Rupees one crore thirteen lakhs fifty nine thousand nine hundred and thirty one only) with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the present suit till realization; and

v) award costs of this suit.

3. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), to reject the plaint in O.S.No.173 of 2002, contending that when once the compromise decree is passed by a Court, the suit questioning or challenging the same is not maintainable as the same is barred under the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3-A of C.P.C. In the said suit, plaintiff sought to cancel the Deed of Assignment of 1995, which was accepted and confirmed in the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.1706 of 1994 and thus, the entire relief claimed in the plaint is barred by law both under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of C.P.C. and also under Law of Limitation.

4. Appellant herein filed counter opposing the said application contending that limitation is mixed question of fact and law and the said issue cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. On completion of full-fledged trial, it is for the learned trial Court to consider the said aspect. Father of respondent Nos.1 to 3 has filed a suit in O.S.No.1706 of 1994 against the appellant and others for partition and separate possession. The said suit ended in compromise and decreed on 06.03.1995. Thereafter, the plaintiff in the said suit has passed away. The plaintiff in O.S.No.1706 of 1994 is not a party to the present suit i.e., O.S.No.173 of 2002. Therefore, plaintiff filed O.S.No.173 of 2002 seeking the aforesaid reliefs. The ground on which defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed the aforesaid application can be considered only after full- fledged trial but not in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. to reject the plaint.

5. Vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2017, learned trial Court allowed the said application holding that there is no challenge to the Decree and Judgment, dated 06.03.1995 in O.S.No.1706 of 1994. It is a compromise decree with the consent of the parties and that the irrevocable GPA and Deed of Assignment, dated 27.12.1991 were also approved and confirmed in the said decree and the appellant filed the suit in the year 2002. Thus, it is barred by limitation and also barred by Order XXIII Rule 3-A of C.P.C. Challenging the said order, appellant preferred the present appeal.

6. As discussed supra, respondent Nos.1 and 2/def