https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307633 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. en-us Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Apr 2023 22:12:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307633 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307633