The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order XXIII Rule (3-A) , U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act  - Section 176 , Section 178 , Section 182

Suit maintainability - Jurisdiction - Validity - Defendants instituted suit before Collector in which appellants' father was made as one of the party - Compromise petition was filed with fake signature of appellants' father and on that basis a compromise decree was passed - Appellant filed suit before Trial Court seeking declaration that decree passed by Collector u/ss. 176, 178 and 182 of the 1950 Act was fraudulent obtained, inoperative and that no notice was served upon his father and his alleged signature on compromise petition was faked as he died much earlier and was not alive when decree was passed - Defendants questioned maintainability of suit contending that suit was related to agricultural lands and hence it was beyond jurisdiction and competence of civil court and should only be tried by revenue authorities - Trial Court upheld defendants' objection holding that suit was not maintainable before a civil court - On appeal, District Judge set aside Trial Court order holding that decree passed by Collector was fraudulent, compromise petition and did not involve any adjudication of rights or interests on agricultural lands - Further, defendants objected maintainability of the suit in Trial Court contending that it was barred under O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC - Trial Court dismissed objection and held suit was maintainable - Aggrieved by orders of Trial Court, defendants filed writ petition that allowed by HC under O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC - Hence instant appeal - Whether HC was justified in allowing the writ under O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC - Held, HC was right in holding that appellants' suit was hit by provisions of O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC, but compromise decree which was alleged to be fraudulent and which was sought to be declared as nullity was passed not by civil court but by revenue court in a suit u/s. 176 of the 1950 Act - Further, Revenue Courts were neither equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on allegations of fraud that had overtones of criminality and courts are really skilled and experienced to try such issues were constituted under CPC - Hence, provision of O. 23 r. 3-A should not act as bar against suit filed by appellant - Impugned order of HC was set aside - Appeal allowed.

Topic(s)-Suit maintainability , Jurisdiction , Validity

Important Decision(s)- 

• Jurisdiction - Suit u/s 176, 178/182 ZA & LR Act - Compromise decree passed by Collector - Civil suit for declaration - Decree was fraudulent obtained - Suit Maintainable.
• O 23, R 3A CPC - Compromise decree passed by Revenue Court - Civil suit - Decree alleged to be fraudulent - Declared nullity - Provision not as bar.