Separate suit challenging a compromise decree is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A, regardless of fraud allegations.

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for partition and separate possession (O.S. No. 262/2022)

Previously, the same parties were involved in O.S. No. 300/2014, which concluded in a compromise decree before a Lok Adalat on December 16, 2017

In the 2022 suit, the plaintiffs challenged the 2014 compromise decree, alleging it was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and that certain joint family properties were excluded

The petitioner (Defendant No. 1) filed an application (I.A. No. III) under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing the suit was barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC

The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that allegations of fraud required a trial and that a consent decree could be challenged like any agreement

The petitioner subsequently filed this civil revision petition

1. Whether a separate suit is maintainable to challenge a compromise decree passed by a Lok Adalat, particularly when the plaintiffs were parties to the original proceedings?

2. Whether the inclusion of additional properties and parties in a subsequent suit can circumvent the bar against challenging a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC?

Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which mandates the rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law

Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC, which prohibits a suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful

The only remedy for a party to a compromise decree seeking to avoid it is to approach the court that recorded the compromise (Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad and K. Srinivasappa v. M. Mallamma)

A Lok Adalat award can only be challenged via a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution (Dilip Mehta v. Rakesh Gupta)

The High Court observed that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, the court must look only at the plaint averments and appended documents

It found that the plaintiffs were admittedly parties to the 2014 compromise decree recorded before the Lok Adalat

The court reasoned that under Order XXIII Rule 3A, a separate suit to set aside a compromise decree is barred; the aggrieved party must instead approach the same forum that recorded the compromise to establish that the underlying agreement was invalid or illegal

The court characterized the plaintiffs' inclusion of additional properties and parties in the 2022 suit as "clever drafting" intended to bypass this legal bar

It further noted that the plaintiffs had already filed a writ petition challenging the same decree, which was pending, thus reinforcing that the separate civil suit was an abuse of process

The court clarified that additional properties or parties could be addressed in final decree proceedings of the original suit rather than through a fresh suit

It held that the suit was barred by law under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC and that the plaintiffs' remedy lay either in a writ petition or by approaching the Lok Adalat that recorded the compromise

The court allowed I.A. No. III and rejected the plaint in O.S. No. 262/2022, granting the plaintiffs liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies