C.R. No. 386 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 386 of 2008 Date of Decision : 20.7.2009 Ziley (minor ) .......... Petitioner Versus Sukhpal Singh & others ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad dismissing an application moved by the petitioner herein under Order 23 Rules 3 and 3A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the compromise order / judgment and decree dated 15.10.207. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad reads as under :- “I have gone through the order / judgment dated 15.10.2007 as well as the decree. The order indicates that in the main suit the applicant / defendant No.3 Zile was represented through the counsel Shri M.C. Verma, Advocate. The compromise was entered by his mother with the plaintiff and the counsel for the applicant also C.R. No. 386 of 2008 2 given certificate that it is in the interest of minor and only then the compromise Ex. C1 was accepted by the court. So in my considered opinion the present application is not maintainable at all. Despite that, if the applicant considered that he was not given due representation during the trial of the case then the applicant is at liberty to challenge the impugned judgment and decree by filing regular suit. With these observations the application is dismissed.” The impugned order cannot be sustained, as it is well settled that a party to the compromise, cannot challenge the compromise decree or order by filing a separate suit, and the only remedy with the party is to go to the same Court. Separate suit by a party to compromise is specifically barred under Order 22 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of observation made, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Faridabad, for adjudication of the application, on merit in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 24.8.2009. 20.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE