ORDER A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J. 1. O.S. No. 44 of 1995 filed by the petitioner, in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gadag, to pass a decree of declaration, partition and separate possession of 1/7th share was allowed and a preliminary decree was passed on 16-4-1998. In pursuance thereof, FDP No. 9 of 1998 was filed. On 31-3-1999, a compromise petition under Order 23, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 having been filed, a final decree was passed on 11-10-2001. O.S. No. 7 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiff, on 2-1-2002, to grant the following reliefs: (a) to set aside the final decree dated 11-10-2001 made in FDP No. 9 of 1998 in contravention of the decree passed in O.S. No. 44 of 1995 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gadag; (b) to pass an order for effecting partition in respect of the suit properties in pursuance of the terms of the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 44 of 1995 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gadag; (c) to pass an order for staying the further proceedings of the case FDP No. 14 of 2000 which is filed in respect of the suit agricultural lands; (d) to award costs and such other equitable reliefs which the Court deems fit and proper. 2. The petitioner who was defendant 3 in O.S. No. 7 of 2002 filed written statement on 24-6-2003. On 5-4-2008, he filed I.A. No. III under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint. Statement of objections was filed to I.A. No. III on 18-6-2004. Learned Trial Judge, by an Order dated 29-1-2007, rejected I.A. No. III. Issues were raised on 11-6-2006. Amongst others, issues raised are the following: (3) Whether decree passed in O.S. No. 44 of 1995 and FDP No. 9 of 1998 is liable to be set aside? (4) Whether the suit is hit by res judicata? 3. Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC provides for rejection of plaint. Clause (e) thereunder, makes it clear that, if, from the averments made in the plaint, the suit appears to be barred by law, the plaint shall be rejected. (4) Whether the suit is hit by res judicata? 3. Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC provides for rejection of plaint. Clause (e) thereunder, makes it clear that, if, from the averments made in the plaint, the suit appears to be barred by law, the plaint shall be rejected. There is no dispute that O.S. No. 44 of 1995 was allowed and preliminary decree was passed on 16-4-1998 and thereafter FDP No. 9 of 1998 was filed and in the said case a compromise petition was filed and the final decree was passed on 11-10-2001. In O.S. No. 7 of 2002, it has been averred as follows: He has claimed 1/5th share in those properties also obtaining the signatures of the defendants 1 to 6 therein i.e., plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 6 herein to the compromise petition by practising fraud upon them and that too to the exclusion of defendants 5 and 6 therein. 4. The cause of action to file the suit is the drawing up of final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 44 of 1995 i.e., when the final decree was drawn on 11-10-2001, pursuant to the compromise petition filed in FDP No. 9 of 1998 on 31-3-1999. In the case of Syed Yusuff v. Fathimabi ILR 2009 Kar. 510 : 2009 (1) KCCR 824 , substantial questions of law raised reads as follows: Whether a separate suit between the same parties is maintainable for setting aside the earlier compromise decree proceedings, in the light of provisions under Order 23, Rule 3A of C.P.C.? While considering the said question, it was held that, no individual or separate suit can be filed for setting aside the compromise decree and the course of action which an aggrieved person should adopt is the one pointed out in the case of Banwari Lal v. Smt. Chando Devi (through L.R.) and Another AIR 1993 SC 1139 : (1993) 1 SCC 581 , wherein it has been held as follows: 14. The application for exercise of power under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 can be labelled under Section 151 of the Code but when by the amending Act specifically such power has been vested in the Court before which the petition of compromise had been filed, the power in appropriate cases has to be exercised under the said proviso to Rule 3. It has been held by different High Courts that even after a compromise has been recorded, the Court concerned can entertain an application under Section 151 of the Code, questioning the legality or validity of the compromise. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases Smt. Tara Bai v. V.S. Krishnaswamy Rao, AIR 1985 Kant. 270; S.G. Thimmappa v. T. Anantha and Others, AIR 1986 Kant. 1; Bindeshwari Prasad Chaudhary v. Debendra Prasad Singh, AIR 1958 Pat. 618 ; Mangal Mahton v. Behari Mahton and Others, AIR 1964 Pat. 483 and Sri Sri Iswar Gopal Jew v. Bhagwandas Shaw, AIR 1982 Cal. 12 , where it has been held that application under Section 151 of the Code is maintainable. The Court before which it is alleged by one of the parties to the alleged compromise that no such compromise had been entered between the parties that Court has to decide whether the agreement or compromise in question was lawful and not void or voidable under the Contract Act, 1872. If the agreement or the compromise itself is fraudulent then it shall be deemed to be void within the meaning of the explanation to the proviso to Rule 3 and as such not lawful. Since O.S. No. 7 of 2002 has been filed alleging that the compromise petition was filed in FDP No. 9 of 1998 on account of fraud practised upon plaintiff and the learned Trial Judge on account of a misdirection adopted has passed the impugned order by observing that I.A. No. III can be considered only when the case comes up for evidence, the view which the learned Trial Judge has taken on I.A. No. III and to pass the impugned order is contrary to the ratio of the decision noticed supra. In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. I.A. No. III filed in O.S. No. 7 of 2002 is allowed. Consequently, the plaint is rejected. However, it is open to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 7 of 2002 and O.S. No. 44 of 1995, to file an application in FDP No. 9 of 1998 and seek appropriate relief, if any. If an application is filed, the same be considered and decided in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties.