LAW FOR ALL

Whether suit filed by appellant was barred in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC - Held: A compromise forming the basis of the decree can only be questioned before the same court that recorded the compromise and a fresh suit for setting aside a compromise decree is expressly barred under Order XXIII Rule 3-A - However, in the instant case, the compromise decree alleged to be fraudulent was passed not by a civil court but by a revenue court in a suit u/s.176 of the Land Reforms Act - Revenue courts are neither equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on allegations of fraud that has overtones of criminality and the courts really skilled and experienced to try such issues are the courts constituted under the CPC - Further, under s.9 of CPC, the civil court has inherent jurisdiction to try all types of civil disputes unless its jurisdiction is barred expressly or by necessary implication, by any statutory provision and conferred on any other tribunal or authority - Nothing in Order XXIII Rule 3-A bars the institution of a suit before the civil court even in regard to decrees or orders passed in suits and/or proceedings under different statutes before a court, tribunal or authority of limited and restricted jurisdiction - In the facts of the case, provision of Order XXIII not a bar against the suit filed by the appellant - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - ss. 176, 178, 182, 331 and 341 and Schedule II. = HORIL ... APPELLANT VERSUS KESHAV & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx