HORIL vs KESHAV

The Supreme Court held that the suit filed by the appellant was maintainable despite the High Court's ruling, as it was based on allegations of fraudulent compromise and did not involve adjudication of rights in agricultural land under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The Court emphasized that Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar the suit since it seeks to challenge the validity of a decree based on fraud. The Court reversed the High Court's decision, allowing the appellant's suit to proceed.