https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313629 A separate civil suit challenging a compromise decree on the ground of fraud was not barred where the decree had been passed by a revenue court exercising limited jurisdiction under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Although Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure ordinarily bars a separate suit to set aside a compromise decree, that bar must be read with the nature of the forum that recorded the compromise. Civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC remains available unless expressly or by necessary implication excluded, and no such exclusion was found here. The objection under Order XXIII Rule 3-A therefore failed. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:51:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313629 A separate civil suit challenging a compromise decree on the ground of fraud was not barred where the decree had been passed by a revenue court exercising limited jurisdiction under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Although Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure ordinarily bars a separate suit to set aside a compromise decree, that bar must be read with the nature of the forum that recorded the compromise. Civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC remains available unless expressly or by necessary implication excluded, and no such exclusion was found here. The objection under Order XXIII Rule 3-A therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313629