JUDGMENT : Initially order dated 26.06.2007 passed in Title Suit No. 33 of 2003 by which the application under Order VII Rule 11 and Order XXIII Rule 3, 3-A C.P.C read with Section 151 C.P.C was rejected, this writ petition was filed. After filing of this writ petition I.A. No. 2758 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners seeking amendment in the writ petition for incorporating challenge to order dated 19.06.2004 by which the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 5 were debarred from filing written statement. I.A. No. 2758 of 2007 was allowed on 11.09.2012. 2. Title Suit No. 33 of 2003 was instituted by Smt. Khokhani Devi for a decree of declaration that preliminary and final decrees passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 were forged, fabricated, fraudulent as well as void, illegal and inoperative, not binding on her. A decree of partition for plaintiff's half share in the schedule “D” property and a decree of declaration of plaintiff's right, title and interest over schedule “CI” properties are the reliefs sought by the plaintiff. In the pending suit, the defendants appeared on 03.12.2003 and by an order dated 19.06.2004 defendant nos. 1, 2 and 5 were debarred from filing written statement. In the meantime, an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C and Order XXIII Rule 3, 3-A C.P.C read with Section 151 C.P.C was filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint on the ground that in view of judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984, the suit was barred by res-judicata. 3. Contending that in view of Rule 3-A to Order XXIII C.P.C a suit on the ground that the decree has been obtained by playing fraud is barred and therefore Title Suit No. 33 of 2003 is liable to be dismissed, Mr. A.K. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioners assails the legality of the impugned order dated 26.06.2007. On debarment of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 5 from filing written statement, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that normally parties should be permitted to contest the suit on merits and therefore these defendants should have been granted opportunity, may be by imposing cost, to file written statement in Title Suit No. 33 of 2003. 4. On debarment of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 5 from filing written statement, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that normally parties should be permitted to contest the suit on merits and therefore these defendants should have been granted opportunity, may be by imposing cost, to file written statement in Title Suit No. 33 of 2003. 4. Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C reads as under : “The defendant, shall file written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence : Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. 5. By now it is well-settled that the period of limitation provided under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C is binding on the parties but not on the Court and in an appropriate case the Court may permit the defendant to file written statement. However, the period of limitation provided under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C cannot be ignored in such a manner that this statutory provision is rendered nugatory. The defendant nos. 1, 2 and 5 who appeared in Title Suit No. 33 of 2003 on 03.12.2003, in spite of 12 adjournments when did not file written statement, by an order dated 19.06.2004 they were debarred from filing written statement. In the application for amendment or in the writ petition, no reason has been indicated by these defendants why in spite of 12 adjournments they have not filed written statement. 6. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in order dated 19.06.2004 challenge to this order fails. 7. On legality of the impugned order dated 26.06.2007 it needs to be recorded that Rule 3-A to Order XXIII C.P.C provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. This Rule refers to a compromise which in law is not lawful and if on the basis of such a compromise a decree has been passed, no suit shall lie. This Rule refers to a compromise which in law is not lawful and if on the basis of such a compromise a decree has been passed, no suit shall lie. Plea that decree in a suit has been obtained by playing fraud evidently is different from the statutory restriction under Rule 3-A. In Title Suit No. 33 of 2003 the plaintiff has pleaded, thus : “21. That thus it is evident that the plaintiff has never filed title suit against her brother Mahabir Rajak and his sons much less Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 and it seems now that defendant nos. 1, 2 and 5 in deep collusion and conspiracy with said Mahabir Rajak pre-planed and conspired to grab plaintiff's schedule 'C' property and her half share in schedule 'D' property by surreptitiously forging and fabricating plaint of Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 by falsely concocting all sorts of false and imaginary claim in the plaint of the suit by setting up some impostor lady impersonating and pretending to be plaintiff surreptitiously concealing all these facts from plaintiff, who never knew that his brother and his family stoop as low to indulge in dishonesty and fraud to such extent and grab all her property by filing such false, fraudulent and imaginary case by forging, fabricating false, baseless and imaginary case through fraudulent compromise judgment and decree in suit in their favour by forging, fabricating L.T.I. on compromise petition through some impostor lady impersonating pretending to be plaintiff by influencing and managing lawyer identifying the impostor as plaintiff as also on playing fraud upon the court when the fact remains that the plaintiff has not filed Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Deoghar nor the plaint of the suit, Vakalanama or compromise petition bears her L.T.I and thus the impugned judgment and compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 besides being forged, fabricated, concocted and obtained by playing fraud upon the court and accordingly, the same is void, illegal, inoperative and nullity in law having been vitiated by fraud and not binding to the plaintiff. It may be noted from the order sheet of Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 dated 30.8.1985 that although the compromise petition dated 07.11.84 seems to have been accepted by the learned Ist Additional Subordinate Judge, on 30.08.1985 but the order sheet indicate that it do not bear signature of the presiding officer of the Court, which formed the basis of compromise preliminary decree and preliminary decree dt. 30.08.85 which remained unsigned by the court, and the preliminary decree on the basis of unsigned order on compromise dated 30.08.1985 besides final decree dated 17.9.1985 passed by Ist Additional Subordinate Judge, Deoghar and Subordinate Judge, III, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 besides being equally forged, fabricated, fraudulent, sham, inoperative and nullity in law having been vitiated by fraud and not binding to this plaintiff on following grounds : (a) Because this plaintiff has never filed any Title Suit prior to Title Suit No. 102 of 2000 against defendant nos. 1, 3 and 5 and Mahabir Rajak seeking declaration of title of her gifted property and partition of land and house of Chhatu Dhobi much less Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Deoghar. (b) The averment made in the pleading of plaint of Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 besides being not made by the plaintiff nor plaintiff filed any such suit and any such averment are all false, baseless, concocted and imaginary which seems to be wrongly and illegally averred on the false instruction and fraudulent machination of defendant nos. 1, 2 in deep collusion and conspiracy which with Mahabir Rajak, who is now deceased, by setting up some impostor pretending to be plaintiff with sole intent to surreptitiously and fraudulently grab plaintiff's property. (c) The plaint with verification and vakalatnama of Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 do not bear the L.T.I. of this plaintiff which must be forged and fabricated by setting up same impostor or through other fraudulent means with sole malafide intent to surreptitiously grab the land of plaintiff behind her back and without her knowledge. (c) The plaint with verification and vakalatnama of Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 do not bear the L.T.I. of this plaintiff which must be forged and fabricated by setting up same impostor or through other fraudulent means with sole malafide intent to surreptitiously grab the land of plaintiff behind her back and without her knowledge. (d) There was no difference and dispute relating to possession of her gifted property and joint possession and occupation of plaintiff with Mahabir Rajak or his sons relating to her father's property prior to 2000 A.D. and accordingly there was absolutely n question for the plaintiff to have any cause of action or relief against her brother and his sons so as to file any suit much less Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 and thus the cause of action and the relief claimed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 were all false, baseless, concocted and imaginary which proves forgery and fabrication of cause of action and relief claimed in plaint of Title Suit No. 29 of 1984. (e) As this plaintiff never filed any Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 against defendant no. 1, 2, 5 and Mahabir Rajak in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Deoghar and accordingly there is absolutely no question of filing any compromise petition in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Deoghar and thus the impugned compromise petition dt. 07.11.1984 and alleged certificate and L.T.I. on the same are forged, fabricated and seems to have been filed by setting up some impostor lady pretending to be plaintiff and at the instance and fraudulent machination of defendant nos. 1, 2 and said Mahabir Rajak with sole malafide and fraudulent attempt to grab the plaintiff property. (f) That falsity, forgery and fabrication and fraud of the impugned compromise petition dt. 07.11.1984 would be evident from the recitals contained in the compromise petition in which the plaintiff does not seem to have been allotted even an inch of land in the suit property and in view of the same there was no necessity at all to file compromise petition instead of withdrawing the suit when the plaintiff was not going to be allotted any thing in the suit property and thus establishes beyond doubt the forgery, fabrication and fraud of alleged impugned compromise petition dt. 07.11.1984. 07.11.1984. This apart the forgery, fabrication and suspicion and doubt of the alleged compromise petition would also be evident from the fact that the Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 was filed on 20.6.1984 and the same was compromised on 07.11.1984 i.e. much within the period of 4 (four) months 12/18 days from the filing of the suit and without any written statement of defendants which smacks dishonest and fraudulent machination of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and Mahabir Rajak to surreptitiously grab almost entire property of the poor illiterate and rustic woman like this plaintiff who according to void and fraudulent compromise was thrown to street on the basis of forged, fabrication and fraudulent compromise decree by setting up some impostor pretending to be plaintiff when the plaintiff had no succession of necessity to file any suit much less Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 which the plaintiff neither filed nor ever compromise any suit with defendant nos.1, 2 and said Mahabir Rajak a fraudulently. (g) The plaintiff never filed any Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Deoghar against defendant nos. 1, 2 and said Mahabir Rajak relating to the suit property nor entered into compromise with defendant nos. 1, 2 and said Mahabir Rajak nor the plaint or compromise petition filed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 bears her statement and L.T.I. this apart the plaintiff never knew any S.K. Singh, Advocate, Deoghar nor there is any question to engage him as her lawyer in any case much less in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 in the court of either subordinate Judge, Deoghar or in the court of Ist, 2nd and 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Deoghar and thus Sri S.K. Singh, Advocate had no power or authority on behalf of this plaintiff to file any compromise petition dated 07.11.1984 in said Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 which is no doubt forge and fabricated in collusion with defendant nos. 1, 2, 5 and Mahabir Rajak. (h) The forgery and fraud of alleged compromise petition dt. 07.11.1984 or compromise decree would evident that the defendant no. 1, 2, 5 and Mahabir Rajak. (h) The forgery and fraud of alleged compromise petition dt. 07.11.1984 or compromise decree would evident that the defendant no. 1 and said Mahabir Rajak in order to bind plaintiff and his son managed to fabricate a false and fraudulent petition for impleading her son as party in suit by setting up some impostor in place of plaintiff's son for impleading him as party in the suit who seems to have challenged the compromise petition and the L.T.I. of the plaintiff in plaint of the suit and the alleged forged compromise petition and subsequently managed to get it withdrawn in the suit to fraudulently establish genuineness of forged, fabricated and fraudulent compromise petition dt. 7.11.1984 with sole intent to surreptitiously obtain fraudulent compromise decree in the suit. (i) The learned Subordinate Judge after having found petition filed challenging the L.T.I. of plaintiff in the plaint of the suit and the alleged compromise petition and subsequent withdrawal of the same vide order dt. 29.08.1985 and accordingly directing hearing on the alleged compromise petition on the next date i.e. on 30.08.1985 and the order sheet of the suit record indicates that on 30.08.1985 neither the so called plaintiff of the suit nor the compromising defendant present in court and in absence of which there do not seem any legal justification for the learned court to suo moto accepts void, fraudulent and forged compromise petition dated 07.11.1984 filed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984, in absence of compromising party and this smacks serious doubt and points to forgery and fabrication of the compromise decree. (j) It may be noted from the order sheet dt. 30.8.1985 of Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 there is no signature of learned Subordinate Judge while accepting compromise dated 07.11.1984 and making the same as terms of the compromise preliminary decree in the suit and that too in absence of compromising parties to the suit and thus of the learned Subordinate Judge on 30.08.1985 same would be treated as forged, fabricated and not on the order of the learned court. It is submitted that the acceptance of compromise and compromise petition forming part of the preliminary decree unsigned by the learned Subordinate Judge is neither acceptance of compromise nor forming compromise decree which seems to have been forged and fabricated by the Peshkar in deep collusion and conspiracy with defendant nos. It is submitted that the acceptance of compromise and compromise petition forming part of the preliminary decree unsigned by the learned Subordinate Judge is neither acceptance of compromise nor forming compromise decree which seems to have been forged and fabricated by the Peshkar in deep collusion and conspiracy with defendant nos. 1, 2 and said Mahabir Rajak who is now deceased. (k) That in view of unsigned order sheet dated 30.08.1985 there is neither acceptance of compromise dated 07.11.1984 nor compromise petition forming compromise decree in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984. (l) That the forgery, fabrication and fraud of the compromise petition dt. 07.11.1984 and compromise decree which formed part of the compromise preliminary decree would further evident from the fact that the plaintiff out of 12 dhurs of land vide Gift Deed No. 2617 which she acquired from her father and accordingly owning and possessing the same and residing in the same with family would gift 8 dhurs of land and residential house standing thereon out of 12 dhurs of land to defendant no.1 Nagendra Rajak vide void and fraudulent Gift Deed No. 3574 of 1970 which has do nexus of gifted land of plaintiff and that too specially her residential house stands as said 8 dhurs of land and remaining 4 dhurs of land lying vacant and shall proper to street with his family and thus belied and falsified the said Gift Deed No. 3574 of 1970 which has no nexus with the lands covered under Gift Deed No. 2617 of 1966 executed by Chhatu Dhobi in favour of plaintiff. (m) The forgery and fabrication of compromise petition and compromise decree of Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 would also be evident that the lands covered under Gift Deed No. 3475 of 1980 fallse on the lands retained by Chhatu Dhobi on calling 2 kathas of land in Plot No. 74 and settlement Plot No. 40 of mouza Belabagan and on gifting 12 dhurs of land in said plot to plaintiff vide Gift Deed No. 2617 of 1966 and accordingly there is absolutely no question for the plaintiff to gift even an inch of land of Chhatu Dhobi who was then alive vide Gift Deed No. 3574 of 1970 and thus the compromise petition and compromise decree relating to acquisition of defendants right in 8 dhurs of land of plaintiff is fully falsified and thus the impugned compromise petition and compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 besides being forged, fabricated, fraudulent is also vitiated by fraud and liable to be set aside and quashed. (n) That the impugned compromise petition and compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Nos. I, III and V is otherwise vitiated by fraud on other ground as well.” 8. It is well-settled that an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C must be decided on plaint averments and only if on a bare reading of the plaint it is found that the suit is barred by a law the suit shall be dismissed. The question whether a suit is barred by any law or not would depend upon the facts of the case. An application for rejection of the plaint can be allowed if the averments in the plaint taken to be correct as a whole disclose the suit to be barred by any law. In “Kamala and Ors. Vs. K. T. Eshwara Sa and Ors.” reported in (2008) 12 SCC 661 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : “21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different stages and under different provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another.” 9. The plaintiff has denied that she has instituted Title Suit No. 29 of 1984 and she has also denied her L.T.I and presence in the court on 30.08.1985 when the alleged compromise was accepted by the court. The plaint averments in Title Suit No. 33 of 2003 disclose that a plea of fraud has been raised by the plaintiff. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.06.2007, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. I.A No. 700 of 2008 stands disposed of. 11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court forthwith.