IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.4 of 2008 1. Gorakh Prasad S/o Bhagelu Ram 2. Janki Devi W/o Gorakh Prasad Both resident of Mohalla/village Bare P.S.Gahmar Dist. Gajipur (Uttar Pradesh) Plaintiffs-petitioners Versus 1. Sidhnath Prasad S/o Dukhi Ram 2. Most. Chndrama Devi W/o Shambhunath Prasad 3. Ajit Kumar Verma 4. Abhishek Kumar Verma 5. Arvind Kumar Verma All sons of late Shambhu Prasad 6. Pusshpa Devi 7. Sangeeta Devi Both D/o late Shambh Prasad 8. Lalee Devi W/o Baijnath Prasad All resident of Village Thatheri Bazar Buxar Dist. Buxar Defendants-Opposite parties ----------- For the petitioners: Mr Dharmendra Kumar Sinha. Advocate Mr Anil Kumar Roy ,Advocate -------------- 03 27.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 26.09.2007 by which learned Munsif II, Buxer allowed the application of the defendants-opposite parties under the provision of Order XXIII Rule 3(A) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for the sake of brevity) and held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners bearing Title Suit No.183 of 1989 was not maintainable and was accordingly dismissed. 3. The aforesaid suit bearing Title Suit No.183 of 1989 was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for partition of their shares in the suit premises and for other ancillary reliefs. However, in the statement of facts in the plaint it was specifically mentioned that earlier Title Suit no. 146 of 1980 was fought between the parties and decree of - 2 - compromise was fraudulently obtained by the defendants-opposite parties. 4. In the said circumstance, when the defendants appeared in the suit, they filed an application stating that the suit was not maintainable under Order XXIII Rule 3(A) of the Code and hence it has to be rejected . The said application filed by the defendants was allowed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 26.09.2007 which is impugned in the instant civil revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenges the said order and submits that no relief was sought in the plaint for setting aside the compromise decree passed in the earlier suit and hence there was no question of filing application under Order XXIII Rule 3(A) of the Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that defendants had willfully debarred plaintiff no.2 from his share by playing fraud upon him and was persistently using compromise petition to take undue advantage and hence the plaintiffs had no option but to file suit for the said share. 6. From the argument as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that earlier suit bearing Title Suit no. 146 of 1980 was between the same parties and with respect to the same property in which the compromise petition was filed duly signed by all the parties including the plaintiffs of the instant suit bearing Title Suit no. 183 of 1989 and on that basis the earlier suit was decreed on compromise. 7. The law is well settled that a fresh suit against earlier - 3 - compromise decree of partition is not maintainable. In the instant case relief claimed by the plaintiffs is directly in the teeth of the compromise decree which was passed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties of the suit including the plaintiffs and hence in view of provision of Order XXIII Rule 3(A) of the Code subsequent suit is not maintainable. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)