Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
VALMIKI MENEZES
Luis Nemesio Menezes – Appellant
Versus
Agapito Salvador Bento Menezes – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consent terms detailing property settlement (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. contention on jurisdiction under cpc (Para 5) |
| 3. court's interpretation of order 23 rule 3 (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. consent terms binding for parties involved (Para 11) |
| 5. quashing of impugned order and directive to trial court (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
1. Registry to waive objections and register the matter.
2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith; at the request of and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of. Learned Advocate Mr. Bernard Fernandes waives service on behalf of the Petitioners and learned Advocate Ms. Sapna Joshi waives service for the Respondents.
4. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji in Special Civil Suit No.9/2023/A. By the impugned order, the Trial court has refused to pass a decree in terms of the Consent Terms dated 05.12.2024 arrived by the parties and has directed the parties to produce title documents of various properties listed therein.
5. The main contention argued by the learned
Consent terms in civil proceedings can encompass agreements beyond the immediate subject matter of a suit if they include the subject property, aligning with procedural provisions.
A party not involved in a compromise decree may challenge it if they do not claim rights through a party to that decree, as per Order 23 Rule 3-A.
Rejection of plaint – Bar contained under Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC shall not be applicable to a stranger to compromise decree challenging compromise decree provided he is not claiming any right throu....
(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....
A consent decree obtained through fraud is challengeable by a third party, and such a challenge does not require an independent suit.
An appeal against a consent decree is barred under Section 96(3) of the CPC; aggrieved parties must contest the decree's validity in the same court that issued it.
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....
The validity of a consent decree depends on the validity of the agreement or compromise on which it is made. The remedy to avoid a consent decree is available only to a party to the decree and not to....
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
