Back
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Hari Mohan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
C. S. R Poultry Research And Breeding Farms – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - I.A. 1757/2022 (u/O XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC by the Plaintiff No. 6 for setting aside Compromise Deed dated 25.01.2019)
I.A. 2420/2023 (u/O XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of CPC by the Plaintiff Nos.5 & 4(vi) for setting aside Compromise Deed dated 25.01.2019)
1. The present Applications under Proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908") have been filed on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff No. 6/ Sh. Inder Pratap Singh Akoi and applicant/plaintiff No. 5/ Smt. Manju Mishra respectively, to set aside the Compromise Decree dated 25.01.2019 in the present Suit.
2. The plaintiffs, including the present applicants who are plaintiff No.6/Inder Pratap Singh Akoi in I.A. 1757/2022 and plaintiff No.5/ Smt. Manju Mishra in I.A. 2420/2022 respectively, had filed the Suit for Specific Performance with the following prayers: -
"(i) A decree for specific performance be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants 1-3, directing them to specifically perform the agreement dated 14.9.1990 and transfer possession of the property at Village Ghitorni (New Delhi)
The rights of the applicants to claim a share in the suit properties were preserved in the Compromise Decree, and the inter se controversy of alleged fraud entailed different pleadings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise deed, once recorded by the court, is lawful and binding, and a subsequent suit challenging the compromise decree is not maintaina....
An application to set aside a consent decree is not maintainable if the party seeking to set it aside can otherwise maintain independent proceedings and is not bound by the decree.
A consent decree requires valid documentation for ownership claims; mere Power of Attorney is insufficient, and allegations of fraud must be substantiated to set aside court decisions.
Specific performance cannot be enforced against parties not privy to the original contract, and suits lacking a cause of action are subject to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
(1) There cannot be any challenge to a consent decree as stipulated under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of C.P.C.(2) Relief for specific performance can also be enforced against a person who is not a party to....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the original Petitioner's conduct amounted to an abuse of the due process of law, and the filing of the Writ Petition challenging the compromi....
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
