IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., Arif S. Doctor, J.
Munna R. Puthalappa - Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Harilal Mehta & Ors. - Respondents
Appeal (L) No.217 of 2024 In Suit No.1044 of 2007 With Interim Application No.1842 of 2023 With Interim Application (L) No.302 of 2024 In Appeal (L) No.217 of 2024 In Suit No.1044 of 2007 With Interim Application No.1842 of 2023
Decided On : 16-01-2024
JUDGMENT :
The challenge in the present Appeal is limited to only certain directions contained in the Order dated 22nd December 2023 passed by the Learned Judge while disposing off the captioned Suit pursuant to Consent Terms entered into between the Appellant (the Plaintiff in the Suit) and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Defendants in the Suit). The directions by which the Appellant is aggrieved came to be passed at the instance of Respondent No.3 - Society who is admittedly not a party to the captioned Suit.
2. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is useful to set out the facts, leading to the Impugned Order, which lie within a very narrow compass and are as follows: -
ii. It appears that thereafter disputes and differences arose between the Appellant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 qua the Appellant's entitlement under the said Agreement. It was thus that the Appellant filed the captioned Suit inter alia for specific performance of the said Agreement claiming to be entitled to two flats and eight shops and basement thereunder. Thereafter, the Court Receiver came to be appointed in respect of two flats, eight shops and basements vide order dated 6th October 2009.
iii. During the course of the Suit, Respondent No.3 - Society filed a Chamber Summons (being Chamber Summons No.998 of 2017), seeking to be impleaded as a Party Defendant to the Suit since it was the contention of Respondent No.3-Society that there were large outstandings of maintenance and other dues in respect of the said two flats, eight shops and basements which were claimed by the Appellant. It appears that thereafter the Court Receiver filed a report seeking various directions from this Court including as to whether the Court Receiver should pay the dues of Respondent No.3 from the amounts that were lying deposited with the Court Receiver. It is not in dispute that thereafter Respondent No.3 withdrew the Chamber Summons and was granted liberty by an order dated 5th December 2019 to be heard by the Court Receiver in addition to the Appellant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 qua the issue of maintenance charges due to Respondent No.3-Society in respect of the said flats and shops.
iv. The Appellant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 thereafter entered into consent terms dated 21st December 2023 by which all disputes and differences between them in the Suit were resolved. The Consent Terms, inter alia provided as follows, viz.
"4.5 Plaintiff and Defendants hereby agree, confirm and declare that they have mutually agreed that society maintenance charges till 31st December, 2023 in respect of Shop No.1 to 8 would be payable by the Plaintiff and society maintenance charges in respect of Flat No. A-203 and A-204 would be payable by the Defendants. Plaintiff and Defendants have also agreed that approximately an amount of Rs. 73, 00, 000/- (Rupees Seventy-Three Lakhs Only) is lying with the Court Receiver - Bombay High Court in the Suit account and the same be first utilised towards the payment of Court Receiver Fees/charges and balance amount would be utilised towards payment of society maintenance charges."
"4.10 Plaintiff and Defendants agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court that the bills issued by the "Paras the Golden Touch Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd." in the name of "A & M Combines"
Consent Terms cannot be unilaterally modified by the court at the instance of a non-party, as it undermines the legal rights of the parties involved.
The Competent Authority cannot override binding Consent Decrees, and deemed conveyance granted in violation of such decrees is unsustainable.
An independent suit challenging a consent decree is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the C.P.C. if the allegations of fraud are predominantly about breach/non-compliance of the consent terms/conse....
Mere Letters of Allotment do not confer ownership rights under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, and parties may compromise their claims in a Suit without the consent of non-signatory par....
Consent decree is not binding on non-parties to proceedings.
Under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Plaintiff can abandon the suit or part of the claim against selected Defendants, and the Court can accept a compromise if it is lawful. The ....
A consent decree is valid and binding on the parties only if the consent is given voluntarily and with full knowledge of the implications of the decree.
Point of law : Applicants have been able to make out more than a prima facie case for grant of leave to appeal. The applicants could be said to be prima facie prejudicially affected by the consent de....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.