ORDER : Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.349 of 2012 in O.S.No.26 of 2012, on the file of Subordinate Court, Cheyyar, the defendants have filed the above revision. 2. The plaintiff filed a Suit in O.S.No.26 of 2012, for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from shifting the idols of Sri Lakshmi Narayana Perumal with Goddess Sridevi and Boodevi and that of Sri Srinivasa Perumal from the sanctum sanctorum of the said Temple at Navalpakkam Village, Vandavasi Taluk. 3. The defendants filed written statement and are contesting the suit. 4. The defendants filed an application in I.A.No.349 of 2012 in O.S.No.26 of 2012, under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, for the following reliefs: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners most humbly pray that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to reject the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff as prima facie not maintainable and also pass any such orders in this regard as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.” 5. In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, the defendants have stated that in the year 2010, it was decided to conduct various renovation works at the temple, by forming a renovation committee. At that time, it was decided that according to Agama Sastras, two different Moolavar Vigrahas cannot be accommodated in a single sanctum sanctorum and therefore, decided to install the idols of Sri Lakshminarayana Perumal with Sreedevi and Bhoodevi in a separate shrine and to install the Srinivasa Perumal idol in the Deivasthanam in the same sanctum sanctorum. 6. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was also a member of the committee and had accepted all these proposals, by signing in the relevant resolutions. Further, the defendants have stated that the committee fixed the date for performing the Mahasamprokshnam i.e, Kumbabishekam on 16.4.2012. Accordingly, the committee shifted the idol of Lakshminarayana Perumal with Sreedevi and Bhoodevi and installed them in a separate shrine and also shifted and installed the idol of Lord Srinivasa Perumal in the Deivasthanam position in the main sanctum sanctorum. 7. Further, the defendants have stated that the plaintiff's son gave a complaint before the Executive Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar and based on the complaint, initially, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandavasi conducted a peace meeting on 9.4.2012 at his Office. 7. Further, the defendants have stated that the plaintiff's son gave a complaint before the Executive Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar and based on the complaint, initially, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandavasi conducted a peace meeting on 9.4.2012 at his Office. At that time, the defendants came to know about the filing of the suit before the Subordinate Court, Cheyyar. Since no agreement was arrived at the peace meeting before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted the peace meeting at Cheyyar on 11.4.2012 and 13.4.2012. The Executive Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed an order under Sec.144 of Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting the Mahasamprokshanam, to be celebrated on 16.4.2012, and to stay all further activities in connection with the Mahasamprokshanam. 8. Since the said Order affected the feelings and sentiments of the committee members and other elders of the village, a Compromise Memo was entered into on 13.4.2012, whereby, the defendants and the plaintiff agreed to abide by certain conditions, enumerated therein. The compromise Memo was produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer and on that basis, on 14.4.2012, the Revenue Divisional Officer had revoked her earlier order, passed under Sec.144 of Criminal Procedure Code and permitted to conduct the Mahasamprokshanam, as scheduled on 16.4.2012. 9. In the compromise memo, it was agreed by both the parties to re-shift the Adikesavaperumal idol to the main sanctum sanctorum and install the idol by the side of Srinivasa Preumal idol and it was also agreed by the plaintiff that the suit in O.S.No.26/2012 and the connected Interlocutory Applications will be withdrawn within three days. 10. The Mahasamprokshanam, held on 16.4.2012, was attended and participated by all the parties. However, despite the commitment made by the plaintiff, in the memo of compromise, on 13.4.2012, the plaintiff did not withdraw the suit in O.S.No.26/2012, instead, he filed a fresh application, seeking for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the second time to inspect the temple. In these circumstances, the defendants have filed an application to reject the suit, stating that the plaintiff is estopped from continuing with the suit, inspite of the commitment made by him in the compromise memo dated 13.4.2012. 11. In these circumstances, the defendants have filed an application to reject the suit, stating that the plaintiff is estopped from continuing with the suit, inspite of the commitment made by him in the compromise memo dated 13.4.2012. 11. The application, filed by the defendants, was contested by the plaintiff, stating that the application filed by the defendants under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable for the reason that the prayer sought for in the application is to reject the plaint, which is not contemplated under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code. Further, the plaintiff has stated that the defendants have not made out a case for rejecting the case under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. 12. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the case of both the parties, dismissed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 13. Heard Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. 14. Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiff is estopped from continuing with the suit, inspite of the commitment made by him in the compromise memo dated 13.4.2012. The learned counsel also submitted that the trial Court should have directed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. That apart, the learned counsel further submitted that since after the execution of the compromise memo, there is no cause of action to continue the suit, the trial court should have rejected the suit, as not maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgmetns: (i) (2004) 11 SCC 168 (Shipping Corporation of India Ltd vs Machado Brothers and Others), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “20. From the above, it is clear that if there is no specific provision which prohibits the grant of relief sought in an application filed under Section 151 CPC to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. From the above, it is clear that if there is no specific provision which prohibits the grant of relief sought in an application filed under Section 151 CPC to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, the court exercising the power under Section 151 CPC first has to consider whether exercise of such power is expressly prohibited by any other provisions of the Code and if there is no such prohibition then the court will consider whether such power should be exercised or not on the basis of facts mentioned in the application. 21. In the instant case, the appellant contends that during the pendency of the first suit, certain subsequent events have taken place which has made the first suit infructuous and in law the said suit cannot be kept pending and continued solely for the purpose of continuing an interim order made in the said suit. (ii) 1986 (10) Delhi High Court 175 (C.W.P.No.987 of 1985 dated 7.11.1987), (Shri Ram Mehar vs Shri Moji and Others), wherein the Delhi High Court has held as follows: “ 9. After noticing this clause the learned Financial Commissioner further found “that it is impossible to believe that he was not aware of what was going on. The Financial Commissioner's Order also shows that the matter was compromised by the parties in open court. Here I find no rason to infer that because the proceedings were conducted in English a stated by the learned counsel for the applicants the applicant Ram Mehar did not understand what was going on. He could not have been oblivious of the fact that the compromise had been effected as it was announced by the Court. ' 15. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the application, filed by the petitioners, under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, to reject the plaint, is not maintainable. However, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the compromise memo is being disputed by the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, unless it is proved by the petitioners/defendants, it cannot be given effect to. 16. However, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the compromise memo is being disputed by the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, unless it is proved by the petitioners/defendants, it cannot be given effect to. 16. That apart, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that some of the terms of compromise memo were not acted upon and further submitted that the suit cannot be rejected based on the averments stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment reported in 2006(3) CTC 175 (Jet Ply Wood Private Ltd and another vs Madhukar Nowlakhs and Others), wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “ 7. There is no doubt in our minds that in the absence of a specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure providing for the filing of an application for recalling of an order permitting withdrawal of a suit, the provisions of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code can be resorted to in the interest of justice. The principle is well established that when the Code of Civil Procedure is silent regarding a procedural aspect, the inherent power of the Court an come to its aid to act ex debito justitiae for doing real and substantial justice between the parties. This Court had occasion to observe in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra vs Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 , as follows: “ It is well settled that the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, for the simple reason that the Legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for providing the procedure for them.” 17. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.26/2012 for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from shifting the idols of Sri Lakshmi Narayana Perumal with Goddess Sridevi and Boodevi and that of Sri Srinivasa Perumal from the sanctum sanctorum of the said Temple at Navalpakkam Village, Vandavasi Taluk. 18. On 13.4.2012, a compromise memo was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants, whereby, the defendants and the plaintiff agreed to abide by certain conditions, enumerated therein. 18. On 13.4.2012, a compromise memo was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants, whereby, the defendants and the plaintiff agreed to abide by certain conditions, enumerated therein. In the compromise memo, it was agreed by both the parties to re-shift the main Adikesavaperumal idol to the main sanctum sanctorum and install the idol by the side of Srinivasa Preumal idol and it was also agreed by the plaintiff that the suit in O.S.No.26/2012 and the connected Interlocutory Applications will be withdrawn within three days. 19. According to the defendants, despite the commitment made by the plaintiff in the compromise memo dated 13.4.2012, he failed to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.26/2012, instead, he filed a fresh application, seeking for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the second time to inspect the temple. In these circumstances, the defendants filed an application in I.A.No.349 of 2012, under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, to reject the suit, stating that the plaintiff is estopped from continuing with the suit, inspite of the commitment made by him in the compromise memo dated 13.4.2012. 20. It is pertinent to note that Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code is not meant for rejecting the plaint. Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, is meant for recording the compromise or satisfaction and passing the decree in accordance therewith. 21. Though the application has been filed Under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, the prayer sought for in the application to reject the suit, is not maintainable, however, a plaint can be rejected only under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure. It is pertinent to extract Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code , which reads as follows: 11. It is pertinent to extract Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code , which reads as follows: 11. Rejection of plaint The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; [(e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9]; [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] 22. The case of the petitioners that since the plaintiff has not honoured his commitment as per the Memo of Compromise dated 13.4.2012 and therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected, cannot stand, for the reason that the said ground shall not fall within the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the suit cannot be rejected, as prayed for in the application in I.A No.349 of 2012. 23. The next point that arises for consideration is whether the application, filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, to reject the suit, can be construed as an application to record the memo of compromise and pass a decree in terms of the compromise. 24. Absolutely, there is no prayer sought for in the application to record the memo of compromise and to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. 24. Absolutely, there is no prayer sought for in the application to record the memo of compromise and to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. In the absence of any prayer to record the memo of compromise, the application, filed by the defendants, cannot be construed as an application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code. Even in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, the defendants have averred only for rejecting the plaint and not to record the compromise memo and to pass a decree in terms of the compromise memo. 25. In the judgment reported in 2006(3) CTC 175 (Jet Ply Wood Private Ltd and another vs Madhukar Nowlakhs and Others), the Apex Court held that in absence of any specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure providing for the filing of an application for recalling of an order permitting withdrawal of a suit, the provisions of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code can be resorted to in the interest of justice. 26. But in the case on hand, the prayer sought for is only to reject the suit. While so, this Court cannot presume that the application was filed only to record the compromise and to pass an order on that angle. 27. Apart from this, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that some of the terms of compromise were not complied with by the defendants and therefore, the compromise memo has no effect. 28. When it was contended by the plaintiff that the defendants have not complied with the terms of compromise, it is a matter for evidence and the same can be established only after adducing evidence. There is no provision under Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code to direct the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. In the absence of any provision in the Civil Procedure Code to direct the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, the present application, even assuming that the application has been filed for withdrawal of the suit, cannot stand. Though there is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the facts and circumstances of the case differs, the above referred judgments are not applicable to the present case. 29. Though there is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the facts and circumstances of the case differs, the above referred judgments are not applicable to the present case. 29. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of all these aspects, rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.349 of 2012 in O.S.No.26 of 2012. 30. In these circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. However, it is open to the defendants to prove the contents and execution of the memo of compromise dated 13.4.2012 at the time of trial. 31. Since the suit is pending from 2012, I direct the Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.