Regular Second Appeal No. 1063 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1063 of 2009 Date of decision : August 11, 2010 Basanti ....Appellant versus Kanwal Singh alias Kamal Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by plaintiff who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below because plaintiff failed to lead any evidence in support of her case. The plaintiff by way of suit challenged compromise decree dated 20.3.2003 passed in earlier suit alleging that the compromise was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Without going into merits of the claim of the parties, a question arises whether the suit itself is maintainable in view of bar created by Order Regular Second Appeal No. 1063 of 2009 -2- 23 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC). Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compromise has been challenged on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and therefore, separate suit is maintainable to challenge the compromise decree on this ground. It was also contended that the aggrieved party would be rendered remediless if suit is held to be not maintainable because appeal against compromise decree also does not lie. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC creates absolute bar to filing of separate suit to challenge compromise decree and at best the plaintiff- appellant, if aggrieved by the compromise decree, could file application under section 151 CPC for recall of the compromise decree in the same court which passed said decree. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Wassan Singh and others versus Lakha Singh and another, 2005(3) PLR 63. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC is reproduced herein:- “Bar to suit: No suit shall lie to set aside the decree on the ground that the compromise of which the decree is passed was not lawful.” Language of the aforesaid statutory provision makes it abundantly clear that no separate suit lies to set aside the compromise decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is passed was not lawful. The plea of the appellant that compromise was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation would vitiate compromise and make it unlawful Regular Second Appeal No. 1063 of 2009 -3- and it would fall within the parameters of Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC. Consequently, separate suit to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid statutory provision. I am supported in this view by judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Wassan Singh's case (supra). It has been categorically held in paragraph 11 of the said judgment that in view of introduction of Rule 3-A (aforesaid) in the year 1976 by amendment of CPC, challenge to the compromise can be entertained by the court passing compromise order and not through separate proceedings in a civil suit. For the fore going reasons, I find that suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is not maintainable in view of Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC and consequently, the instant appeal has no merit although for reasons different than those assigned by the courts below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on the right of the plaintiff-appellant to challenge the compromise decree by filing application under section 151 CPC, which if filed, may be decided in accordance with law. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 11, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'