Back
ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Santosh Kumar Rastogi – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar Rastogi – Respondent
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.
2. The petitioner has filed the present application for setting aside the order, dated 21.12.2017, passed, in Title Suit No. 415 of 2011, by learned Sub Judge, Ballia, Begusarai, by which the petition, dated 16.02.2017, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file miscellaneous case, has been rejected.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that preliminary compromise decrees were passed in Title Suit No. 24 of 1994 and Title Suit No. 222 of 2003, by learned Sub Judge-I and Sub Judge- II, Begusarai, respectively, on the ground that the aforesaid decrees were passed without notice and on the basis of forged signature of the minors and others.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Title Suit No. 24 of 1994 was filed on 02.02.1994 by Ajay Kumar Rastogi against the petitioner and others for partition of the properties including those of self-acquired properties of the petitioner’s family, impleading the petitioner and his younger brother, as defendants, who were minors at that point of time. The petitione
(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 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 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.
A suit where a decree based on compromise is not challenged, but compromise itself is called into question, would also be barred by provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC.
Consent and subsequent conduct of the party can validate a compromise even if the party did not sign the compromise.
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
