Separate suit challenging compromise decree barred by statutory prohibition; plaint rejection restored at the maintainability stage.

Order XXIII Rule 3A bars a separate suit to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful, and the court may look to the substance of the plaint to prevent artful drafting from avoiding that bar. At the Order VII Rule 11(d) stage, the controlling issue is maintainability, not examination of the compromise on the merits; the High Court therefore erred in testing the decree under Order XXXII Rule 7 without first applying the statutory bar. The trial court's rejection of the plaint was restored, and any challenge to the compromise decree had to be pursued before the court that recorded it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a separate suit challenging a compromise decree, directly or by clever drafting of multiple reliefs, is barred at the stage of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d); (ii) Whether the High Court could set aside rejection of the plaint by examining the compromise decree on the touchstone of Order XXXII Rule 7 without first addressing the statutory bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A.

Issue (i): Whether a separate suit challenging a compromise decree, directly or by clever drafting of multiple reliefs, is barred at the stage of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d).

Analysis: Order XXIII Rule 3A creates an express bar against a suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which it is based was not lawful. The settled position is that the party questioning the compromise must approach the very court which recorded it, and a separate suit is not maintainable. A plaint cannot be saved by artful drafting if the real and substantial relief is to unsettle the compromise decree, and the court may look to the substance of the pleading while considering rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d).

Conclusion: The separate suit was barred, and the plaint was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could set aside rejection of the plaint by examining the compromise decree on the touchstone of Order XXXII Rule 7 without first addressing the statutory bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A.

Analysis: At the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11, the controlling question is maintainability of the suit. The High Court did not decide that question under Order XXIII Rule 3A and instead entered into the validity of the compromise decree by reference to Order XXXII Rule 7. That approach was impermissible because the validity of the compromise was not the issue for decision at that stage.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in interfering with the rejection of the plaint on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court's order rejecting the plaint was restored, while the challenge to the compromise decree was left to be decided by the court that recorded the compromise.

Ratio Decidendi: A separate suit to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful is barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the only remedy is before the court that recorded the compromise; at the plaint stage, the court must test maintainability and not examine the merits of the compromise decree.

---