“In my view, trial court committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. In fact under Order 23, Rule-3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, a specific bar has been prescribed in respect of institution of a separate suit for setting aside a decree passed on the basis of compromise. However, party challenging compromise can file a petition under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 or an appeal under Section 96(1) of the Code, in which he can now question the validity of compromise in view of Rule-1A of Order 43 of the Code. Applications for exercise of power under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 can be limited under Section 151 of the Code, but when by amending Act specifically such power has been vested inn the court, before which the petition for compromise had been filed, the power in appropriate cases has to be exercised under the said proviso to Rule 3. Accordingly, even after a compromise was recorded, the court concerned can entertain an application under Section 151 of the Code, questioning the legality and validity of the compromise.
