Sub-section (3) of section 96 of the Code would only debar those appeals which are filed against a decree in which the appellant does not dispute the recording of a compromise.

JUDGMENT - Ginwala A.A. J.J.-Since a common question of law is involved in both these Revision Applications, they are being disposed of by one judgment. The facts leading to these revision applications, stated briefly, are as follows.

2. Devkinandan Bhojraj, non-applicant in Civil Revision Application No. 305 of 1980, had filed a suit against Deorao Patilbuwa Raut who is applicant in both the revision applications, being Regular Civil Suit No. 276 of 1978 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Malkapur for recovering an amount of Rs. 10,150. Defendant Deorao appeared in that suit through a counsel. On 17-10-1979, the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant in the suit filed an application for recording” a compromise as stated in the said application and for drawing up a decree accordingly. Both the counsel stated below their signatures that they had authority to compromise. The learned-Civil' Judge allowed the application and passed a decree in terms of” the compromise. Being aggrieved by this decree, defendant Deorao preferred an appeal iff the District Court at Buldana being Civil Appeal No. 255 of l979.

3. Bhagwandas, non-applicant in Civil Revision: Application No. 306 of ?980, had

also instituted a suit against applicant Deorao being Regular Civil Suit No.. 277 of 1978 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division; at Malkapur for recovering an amount of Rs. 8,300: Deorao appeared through a counsel. As in the other suit so in this suit also, on 17-10-1979,. both the counsel filed an application for recording a compromise and passing a decree accordingly. This application Appeared to have been; signed by plaintiff Bhagwandas-himself, while if was; signed by the counsel for defendant Deorao. By Ms order passed by the learned Civil Judge-on the application on the same day, he accepted the compromise and-directed a decree to be drawn accordingly. Being aggrieved by this decree, defendant Deorao preferred an appeal in the District Court at Buldana being Civil Appeal No-. 254 of 1979.

4. Both the aboves said appeals were heard together by the learned' district Judge. On behalf of the respondents in both these appeals., namely, Devkiriandan and Bhagwandas, objection was taken to the main tainability' of the appeals-on the ground that the decrees against which these appeals had been filed being consent decrees, no appeal could lie against them as provided by sub-section (3) of section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,. 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). On behalf of appellant Deorao in both these appeals, it was contended that even, assuming that the appeals were barred by section 96(3) of the Code, the appeals could be fifed and maintained under Rule 1A of Order XLIII of the Code. The learned District Judge, by a common judgment delivered on 19-2-1980, upheld the contention of the two respondents and held that the appeals having been: filed against decrees passed by the lower Court “with the consent of both the sides”, were not maintainable, Inasmuch as they were prohibited specifically by section 96(3) of the Code. In the view which he took, he rejected the appeals and it is against this order of rejection of the appeals that the present revision applications have been filed by the appellant in those two appeals,

5. Mrs. V. A. Naik, the learned counsel for the applicant in both these revision applications, submitted that sub-rule (2) of Rule 1A of Order XLIII of the Code contemplates an appeal even against a decree passed In a suit after recording a compromise, assuming that the appeal is barred under section 96(3) of the Code. She further contended that at any rate if the validity of a compromise itself is challenged in the appeal, It would not be an appeal against a decree with the consent of the parties and would not come within the mischief of sub-section (3) of section 96 of the Code. She submitted that even though appellant Deorao, hile filing the appeals, had styled them as app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document