Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. These two revision petitions have been preferred against the order dated 27.6.1998 passed by Sub-Judge-IV, Motihari in Miscellaneous case no. 3 of 1994 and Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 1995. 2. In the partition suit no. 300 of 1976 after preliminary decree when the final decree was under preparation then a compromise was effected between the parties as is revealed from the records and the impugned order and that compromise decree was challenged by filing petitioners under-Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the above-mentioned petitioners before the court below. Objections were filed from the side of the opposite parties and after hearing the parties and on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence from both sides, learned court below came to the finding that although the compromise petition might be suffering from some sort of irregularity/illegality but the same cannot be set aside as fraud, as alleged, could not be proved from the side of the petitioners. 3. Mr. N. K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the im-punged order is suffering from impropriety on the fact of it. It is his submission that a compromise petition filed or a decree being arrived on the basis of the compromise could be considered by the court regarding its lawfulness and if the compromise itself is an unlawful one then the decree passed cannot be construed as a legal decree and the parties must not be asked to fight out the case in separate suit. It appears that on factual aspect learned court below has held that some illegality has been committed in the compromise itself. If that illegality is there then the same cannot be said to be a lawful one and in that aspect the original court is required to consider the validity of the compromise decree itself. It has further been submitted that from the compromise petition, as was filed, it is apparent on the face of it that the same is a concocted and manufactured one. It has further been submitted that from the compromise petition, as was filed, it is apparent on the face of it that the same is a concocted and manufactured one. The compromise and its terms and conditions were spread over in different pages of the compromise petition and those were typed but the last page where the signatures of the parties were taken and being tagged with the compromise petition, the same was in ink and it appears from the compromise petition itself that the compromise was prepared somewhere else and then the signatures were taken. Those matters have not been considered by the learned court below. Whether there was an agreement between the parties before arriving at the compromise itself has not at all been considered when there is specific allegation that fraud has been practised on one of the petitioners Mrs. Radhika Devi as her thumb impression was taken on the plea of making pairvi in the case and that terms of the compromise had never been read over. It has also been contended that some of the properties have been included in the compromise petition, namely, in Schedule-I Khata no. 79, plot no. 160 but the same was not in the suit property as per the schedule of the plaint. It has also been contended that no Municipal Holdings were included in the suit property but the compromise petition had included some Municipal holdings. In that way some other properties in Schedule-II as per khata no. 180, plot no. 1073 have been included in the compromise petition whereas in the suit plot no. 1074 was there. Thus outside properties have been included in the compromise petition. 4. It is settled principle of law that in a suit if a compromise is arrived at requesting some outside properties also then the said compromise petition is required to be regarded to get the legality of it. Be it what it may, the fact remains that irregularity, and impropriety are said to be apparent on the face of which the compromise petition is based and although some observation had been made by the learned court below in that line but it had declined to interfere with the compromise decree, on the ground that already a civil suit has been preferred by one of the petitioners namely, Vijay Kumar to fight the compromise decree. It is the submission of Mr. It is the submission of Mr. Agarwal that although the petition for setting aside the compromise decree has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure but it requires to be construed under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it has also been held by the Apex Court and also by this Court that for avoiding a compromise decree a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure may also be entertained by the Court who passed the compromise decree. 5. After the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code in the year 1976 for avoiding the contrary decisions arrived at by different High Courts regarding maintainability of a separate suit for availing the compromise decree a new provision has been included as contained in Order 23 Rule 3(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein it was held that no separate suit shall be maintainable on the ground that the compromise was not a lawful one. The word lawful has got a vast implication and includes every challenge of the compromise decree regarding its unlawfulness either on the ground of fraud, coercion, impropriety and illegality etc. etc. Thus, Rule 3(A) as included in the new Civil Procedure Code had never been considered by the learned court below while passing the impugned order. Although opposite parties had appeared in this revision petition but the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the brief has been taken away by his client and that he has got no instruction. In that way the submissions and contentions made by Mr. Agrawal appearing for on behalf of the petitioners remains un-controverted. 6. On perusal of the records of the case and also the impugned order itself I find that the learned court below did not apply its judicial mind while disposing of the petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the compromise decree. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners have got force but such submissions must be considered on the basis of the materials on record itself. In that way the revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are sent back to the court below for deciding the same afresh after giving further opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In that way the revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are sent back to the court below for deciding the same afresh after giving further opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.