Horil v. Keshav & Anr

The Supreme Court explained the reach of Section 9 CPC and the limit of Order 23 Rule 3-A. The plaintiff said a compromise decree before the Assistant Collector was based on fraud—fake signature of his father, who had already died. Because the suit mainly attacked fraud in the compromise (and did not ask the civil court to decide land rights), the civil suit was maintainable. The High Court’s contrary view was set aside and the trial was ordered to proceed fast.

• Was the compromise lawful or hit by fraud so as to be void/voidable under the Contract Act?
• Does Order 23 Rule 3-A bar a civil suit challenging a decree passed by a limited-jurisdiction authority?

• Section 9 CPC: Civil courts can try all civil disputes unless a statute expressly or by necessary implication bars jurisdiction or gives power to another forum.
• Order 23 Rule 3-A: Does not bar a civil suit that attacks a decree passed in proceedings before a court/authority of limited jurisdiction, when the challenge is grounded in fraud in compromise.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. On these facts, Order 23 Rule 3-A did not bar the civil suit. The case concerns alleged fraud in the compromise before a limited-jurisdiction authority, not adjudication of title/tenure. The High Court’s order was set aside, the suit was restored to the Munsif, and the trial court was directed to decide it without delay.

• Wide gate of Section 9 CPC: Civil court power stands unless clearly taken away by statute.
• Narrow bar of Rule 3-A: Does not block a civil suit that assails a compromise decree of a limited forum on grounds of fraud.

This case protects litigants against fraudulent compromises. It confirms that civil courts can step in to test fraud even when the original decree came from a revenue or limited forum.

• Section 9 CPC is the default door for civil disputes.
• Rule 3-A is not a blanket bar; context matters.
• Fraud vitiates compromises; civil courts may examine it.

Mnemonic: WIDE-NARROW-FRAUD — Section 9 is wide; Rule 3-A is narrow; fraud can be tested in civil court.

1. Ask: Is there a clear statutory bar?
2. If not, Section 9 applies.
3. Fraud in compromise before a limited forum → civil suit maintainable.

Issue: Is the civil suit challenging a compromise decree on fraud grounds barred by Order 23 Rule 3-A?

Rule: Section 9 CPC gives wide power; Rule 3-A does not bar suits that assail fraudulent compromises of limited forums.

Application: Plaintiff alleged forged signature; decree by Assistant Collector; suit targets fraud, not land rights.

Conclusion: Suit is maintainable; matter restored for speedy trial.

Section 9 CPC

General power of civil courts to try all civil suits unless barred.

Order 23 Rule 3-A

Provision restricting separate suits against compromise decrees—construed narrowly here.

Void ab initio

Invalid from the very beginning, as if it never existed.