P CHINNARAJ @ P RAJAN Vs. C RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is filed seeking to strike off I.A.No.421 of 2013 in O.S.No.63 of 2013 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2013 against the respondents 2 to 9 seeking partition and separate possession of his share. The suit was filed on 09.01.2009. The parties had entered into a compromise and filed a joint memo under Order 23 Rule 3 to record the compromise. Based on the compromise arrived at between the parties, the trial court decreed the suit on 13.10.2009. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.421 of 2013 under Order XXIII Rule 3A to set aside the compromise decree stating that it was obtained by fraudulent means. The petitioner filed his counter and enquiry was also commenced in the application. At this juncture, this revision petition is filed.

(3.) MR .N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the third party to set aside the compromise decree arrived at between the parties to the suit is not maintainable; that the petitioner has also impleaded the respondents 10 to 14 claiming right in the property; that the bar under Rule 3A of Order XXIII would apply only to the parties to the suit and the third party can very well file an independent suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwari Lal v. Smt.Chando Devi and anr. reported in AIR 1993 SC 1139.