1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 6/2011 (Piraji Laxman Khillare vrs. Sou. Bebitao Piraji Khillare) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri R.S.Kurekar, counsel for applicant Shri M.L.Vairagade, counsel for non-applicant ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 25th FEBRUARY, 2011. This Civil Revision Application challenges the order dated 14.9.2010 passed below Exh. 10 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim, By the impugned order, the application filed by the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by provision of Order 23, Rule 3(a) of C.P.C., has been rejected. The trial Court in the impugned order has recorded the finding that the suit in the present form is maintainable for the simple reason that the compromise alleged to be not lawful. It has further 2 been held that the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act do prescribes that no appeal would lie, but there appears to be no express bar to challenge the decree on the point of deception. According to the trial Court, the averments are serious in nature and are required to be decided after permitting the parties to lead evidence. Hence, it has been held that the suit cannot be dismissed at the threshold. The trial Court having recorded the finding that the question whether the compromise on which the decree was passed, was lawful or not, is required to be gone into, after permitting the parties to lead evidence, no fault can be found with such order. The relief claimed is for declaration that the decree dated 9.8.2008 passed in HMP No. 83/2008 be declared as null and void. The question whether the thumb impression of the non- applicant was obtained fraudulently or not is required to be gone into. In view of above, there is no substance in this Civil Revision Application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 3 It is made clear that the trial Court shall not get influenced by the observations made in the order impugned or by the fact that this Court has dismissed the revision application, while finally deciding the case after recording evidence. JUDGE Rvjalit