Does Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bar a suit where the memo is not signed by both parties?

Paragraph 33Furthermore, learned Counsel for the respondent would submit before this Court the set of rulings tabulated above to vehemently contend that a Compromise Memo or Consent Decree can be challenged in the same proceedings alone and separate Suit would not lie in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no quarrel with the said legal position but the same is not applicable to the present case, for the following reason. After the 1976 amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vide Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, a compromise shall be in writing and singed by the parties. But in Ex-B.4 - Memo said to be filed by the plaintiff herein in O.S. No.111 of 1996 submitting to the Decree, only alleged signature is found. There is no defendant's signature or her Counsel's signature. There is nothing available on record to show that both the plaintiff and the defendant appeared before the Court on that day and explained the compromise. Nor is there anything available on record to show that the identity of the parties were verified that day. In these circumstances, Ex-B.4 is not a compromise memo in technical sense and hence, the aforesaid legal position does not apply to the instant case. Further, the plaintiff herein had filed Ex-A.8 - Complaint dated July 15, 1997 before the Trial Court on the administrative side soon after filing of Ex-B.4 - Memo stating that he never appeared before the Court nor signed the memo as alleged. Accordingly, he prayed to stop the execution proceedings. It appears that the plaintiff could not get any relief from there and hence, he has filed O.S. No. 347 of 1997 seeking to set aside the Decree.