PERMOD KOHLI,J. - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
(2.) NOTICE of motion in this case was issued on 05.05.2006. On 04.02.2008 when this appeal came up for consideration, a question arose regarding the maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the respondents sought time to examine this issue on the following question :- Whether the suit filed by the respondents challenging the compromise decree dated 25.10.1994 passed in Civil Suit No. 647 dated 07.04.1997, is maintainable in view of the specific provisions under Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure ? It is admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff-respondents filed suit for declaration challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.10.1994 referred to above. The allegations contained in the plaint are that the decree is a result of fraud committed by the defendant by way of impersonation and misrepresentation and is illegal, null and void, collusive and ineffective. Mutation No. 3676 entered on the basis of the aforesaid decree has also been challenged. The aforesaid decree came to be passed on the basis of the compromise by Bhag Singh allegedly on the basis of family settlement. The defendant also did raise a plea regarding the maintainability of the suit and the learned trial Court framed as many as 14 issues. However, the issue regarding maintainability seems to be misdirected. For the convenience issue No. 13 is reproduced as under :- "13. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. ?
(3.) BOTH the learned Courts below have decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs, setting aside the decree allegedly on the basis of fraud. It is also admitted case that the decree impugned was passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Bathinda.;