Back
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
Navratan Lal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Radha Mohan Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant initially filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The appellant then filed a first appeal. During its pendency, the parties reached a compromise, agreeing to dispose of the appeal based on its terms. On 14.07.2022, the High Court decided the appellant’s application under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Hereinafter “CPC”] and disposed of the first appeal in terms of the compromise. However, when the respondent failed to comply with the compromise terms, the appellant filed an application to restore the appeal.
Unfortunately, this application was dismissed by the order impugned before us, citing that the High Court had not granted liberty for restoration of the appeal while recording the compromise.
3. After careful consideration of the statutory framework and Order 23, Rules 3 and 3A, as informed by relevant judicial precedents, we have allowed the appeal. We have directed that, in such circumstances, restoration is the sole remedy, which the aggrieved party may exercise as a statutory right.
4. The short facts are that the appellant is the owner
(1) Breach of compromise – Only remedy available to aggrieved party is to approach court that recorded compromise under proviso to Order 23, Rule 3 of CPC.(2) When there is a statutory remedy availab....
A party aggrieved by a compromise decree has a right to challenge the compromise decree by way of an appeal or to approach the same court which passed such decree by way of an appropriate application....
A party can appeal against a compromise decree to challenge its validity despite Section 96(3) CPC barring appeals against such decrees.
An appeal is not maintainable from a compromise decree under Section 96(3) of CPC, and the compromise decree confers only a right in personam and is not binding on parties who are not part of the com....
A consent decree obtained through fraud is void, and courts must investigate claims of fraud before accepting the decree as valid.
(1) Compromise decree - A party that accepts compromise is bound by it and cannot appeal - A party that denies compromise must first raise that dispute before Trial Court - A fresh suit is no longer ....
(1) No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful.(2) Mere clever drafting would not permit plaintiff to make suit maintainable which o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
