ORDER : This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by 6th Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.486, area 0.526 hectare, P.H.No.114, R.N.M. Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur. It was averred that in respect of the said land, compromise has taken place between the plaintiff and the defendants in Civil Suit No.182/2010 before the civil Judge, Aurangabad (Bihar) vide order dated 16.7.2010 which has attained finality for want of any challenge before the higher forum and as such, it is binding on the parties. In compliance of the said decree, the defendants have got their names mutated in respect of their share of the suit property. As per decree of the year 2010, the petitioner as well as respondent No.1/plaintiff is having their portion of land which is situated at Raipur bearing Khasra No.486 which is divided in four parts, in which name of the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 is registered as Khasra No.486/3 and Khasra No.486/1 for which Raipur Development Authority has published advertisement informing that their land is being acquired under “Nagar Vikas Yojna No.4” and therefore, it is being allotted at some other place vide memo dated 3.7.2019 (Annexure P/6). Pursuant to the said memo, the petitioner on 4.7.2019 made the requisite payment of Rs.4,45,590/- vide Annexure P/7. The petitioner and the respondents filed an application before the Tehsildar, Raipur for mutation of properties in their names in which the Tehsildar ordered for dividing and registering the property in the ratio 32 1/2 decimal amongst all vide Annexure P/8. However, thereafter, the plaintiff filed the instant suit bearing No. 23A of 2020. Hence the petitioner/defendant No.3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on 24.3.2022 (Annexure P/4) stating that the suit property has been registered in the name of the defendants on the basis of compromise between the parties and therefore, the instant suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff filed reply to the above application and denied all the adverse averments vide Annexure P/5. The plaintiff filed reply to the above application and denied all the adverse averments vide Annexure P/5. The learned Court below vide impugned order dated 14.12.2022 considering the submission of both the parties, rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is perverse and liable to be set aside. No suit is maintainable after order of compromise being passed with the leave of the Court and as such, the instant suit is filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff only with a view to snatching the property belonging to the petitioner with ill-intention. In the compromise decree of the year 2010, it is specifically pleaded by all the parties that no party shall challenge the aforementioned compromise before any court of law as a particular term and the present suit has been filed only to harass the petitioner. The trial Court ought to have allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the plaint on the ground that in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC, no independent suit would be maintainable against the compromise decree. It is further argued that the compromise decree is binding on respondent No.1 and therefore, the application under Order VII Rule 11 deserves to be allowed. The instant suit has been filed almost after a period of 10 years, for which the plaintiff must have put forth any plausible explanation but that has not been done. For all these reasons, the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 is liable to be set aside and consequently, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on decisions in the matter of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 ; Bharvagi Construction and another Vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others, AIR 2017 SC 4428 ; Sree Surya Developers and Promoters Vs. N. Sailesh Prasad and others, (2022) 5 SCC 736 ; the order dated 5.8.2022 of the High Court of MP in Civil Revision No.341/2021 in the matter of Krishna Kumar Anand and others Vs. Varun Anand and others, and Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, AIR 2023 SC (Civil) 2183. 4. N. Sailesh Prasad and others, (2022) 5 SCC 736 ; the order dated 5.8.2022 of the High Court of MP in Civil Revision No.341/2021 in the matter of Krishna Kumar Anand and others Vs. Varun Anand and others, and Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, AIR 2023 SC (Civil) 2183. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposing the prayer of the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law. It is a trite law that for the purposes of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage and no amount of evidence can be looked into. The petitioner herein has violated a duty of good faith and acted unconsciously by not disclosing the material fact that respondent No.1 possesses a valid sale deed in his favour dated 5.9.1985 (Annexure R-1) with respect to the land bearing Khasra No.486, RNM Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur, which is the self-acquired property of respondent No.1 and he is rightful owner of the said land. Copy of Form B-1 and Form P-11 and Kisan Kitab of respondent No.1 with respect to the above land has been filed as Annexures R-2 and R-3. 5. It is further argued that vide memorandum dated 2.9.2010 the Revenue Officer, Raipur Development Authority informed respondent No.1 that his land bearing Khasra No.486, area 5260 square meter is included in the Town Development Scheme No.04 (Kamal Vihar) and that in exchange, he would get restructured land E-75, 76, E-99, 100, admeasuring 1841 square meters in Sector-1, Town Development Scheme No.04 (Kamal Vihar), on which respondent No.1 signed an affidavit dated 28.9.2010 vide Annexure R-4. However, the petitioner by playing fraud and by corrupt practices, in a secretive manner, has got his name mutated against the aforesaid property of respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1/plaintiff came to know about the same only in the year 2019. Thereafter, respondent No.1 on 15.7.2019 raised objection before the Raipur Development Authority in this regard. Respondent No.1 has filed a civil suit for declaration of title on a certain piece of land as per the compromise decree dated 27.8.2010 in Nuapada, Odisha. Thereafter, respondent No.1 on 15.7.2019 raised objection before the Raipur Development Authority in this regard. Respondent No.1 has filed a civil suit for declaration of title on a certain piece of land as per the compromise decree dated 27.8.2010 in Nuapada, Odisha. There are many mistakes and faults in the compromise decree and that the petitioner himself has failed to fulfill the obligations on his part as required by the compromise decree. Therefore, respondent No.1 filed the present suit to prove his ownership of land in question. In view of above, the impugned order passed by the trial Court being just, proper and in accordance with law requires no interference by this Court. The instant civil revision being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Saleem Bhai and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2003) 1 SCC 557 , Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and others, (2021) 9 SCC 99 ; H.S. Deekshit and others Vs. Metropoli Overseas Ltd. & others, Manu/SC/1403/2022; Gurdev Singh Vs. Harvinder Singh, Manu/SC/1685/2022 and order dated 3.12.2018 of this Court in FA No.138/2006 in the matter of Sardar Krishna Singh dead through LRs Vs. Smt. Chandraprabha Gupta and others. 6. In his Rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 is relying upon a sale deed executed on 5.9.1985 when he was around 23 years of age and is misleading the Court stating it to be his self-acquired property. However, it is worthwhile to mention here that there is no mention or any averment with respect to the sale deed dated 5.9.1985 in the plaint, through which respondent No.1 wants to make out a case of different nature. Respondent No.1 also participated in the mutation proceedings of the suit property in which respondent No.1 never objected when the suit property was being mutated in the names of the persons as per schedule of the compromise deed. Copy of the relevant order sheets is marked as Annexure P/12. Respondent No.1 has also accepted the compromise deed which is admitted by him in his plaint and never challenged. Therefore, no other relief against such suit property can be granted to him. Copy of the relevant order sheets is marked as Annexure P/12. Respondent No.1 has also accepted the compromise deed which is admitted by him in his plaint and never challenged. Therefore, no other relief against such suit property can be granted to him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions have decided that by mere clever drafting of the plaint, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to maintain the suit, which otherwise would not be maintainable and/or barred by any law. It was also observed that if clever drafting has created any illusion of the cause of action, the Court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The petitioner has filed copy of compromise decree and pleadings of both the cases. It is clear from the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2010 that in the previous suit, petitioner Shyam Prasad Gupta and respondent No.1 Shiv Prasad Gupta and other respondents were also party to the suit. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court on the basis of compromise but respondent No.1 Shiv Prasad Gupta again filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur. It is evident from paras 2 & 3 of the plaint that the property was same in both the suits and respondent No.1 stated about the previous suit. From the decree dated 27.8.2010 it is clear that in the previous suit, the learned trial Court passed decree on the basis of compromise and description of the suit land is also attached with the decree wherein the suit land of the present suit is also described. In the present suit, the plaintiff is claiming land bearing Khasra No.486, PHN 114, area 0.526 hectare situated at Village-Tikrapara. In the previous suit also, the land in question is described as Khasra No.486, PHN 114, area 32.50 decimal at Lalpur, Raipur in the compromise petition and Schedule B. 9. Learned trial Court observed that only plaint averments have to be seen while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. However, it did not consider the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC which reads as under : “3-A. Bar to suit. Learned trial Court observed that only plaint averments have to be seen while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. However, it did not consider the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC which reads as under : “3-A. Bar to suit. - No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sree Surya Developers & Promoters (supra) held in paras 8, 10 & 11 of its judgment as under : “8. Therefore, on plaint reading of Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC, no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in R. Janakiammal, (2021) 9 SCC 114 . It is observed and held by this Court that Rule 3-A of the Order 23 bars the suit to set aside the decree on the ground that the compromise on which decree was passed was not lawful. It is further observed and held that an agreement or compromise which is clearly void or voidable shall not be deemed to be lawful and the bar under Rule 3-A shall be attracted if compromise on the basis of which the decree was passed was void or voidable. In this case, this Court had occasion to consider in detail Order 23 Rule 3 as well as Rule 3-A. 10. In view of the above decisions of this Court, the trial Court was absolutely justified in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit for the reliefs sought challenging the compromise decree would not be maintainable. 11. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the plaintiff that in the suit the plaintiff has not specifically prayed for setting aside the compromise decree and what is prayed is to declare that the compromise decree is not binding on him and that for the other reliefs sought, the suit would not be barred and still the suit would be maintainable is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy (supra) has held in para 7 of the judgment as under : “7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy (supra) has held in para 7 of the judgment as under : “7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when, the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” 12. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” 12. In the present case also, it is clear that both the parties entered into a compromise in the previous suit in respect of the property in question and after long delay, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the same property which is not maintainable. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.1 being distinguishable on facts are of no help to him. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 being not sustainable is liable to be set aside. 13. On the aforesaid ground and discussion, this civil revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is hereby allowed and consequently, the suit i.e. Civil Suit No.23-A/2020 filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff stands dismissed.