IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 9781/2024 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

FAO(OS) 24/2024 & CM APPL. 9780/2024, CM APPL. 9782/2024

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, impugning the Judgment dated 05th January, 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No. 1757/2022, in CS(OS) No. 1511/1991, whereby the application filed by the Appellant i.e., plaintiff no.6 under proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') for setting aside of the Decree dated 25th January, 2019, has been dismissed.

3.1. The Appellant/plaintiff no.6 along with other plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed the underlying suit for Specific Performance on 7th May, 1991, seeking performance of the Agreement to Sell (`ATS') dated 14th September, 1990. The Appellant on 05th January, 1991 had nominated Respondent No.2/plaintiff no.2 as the purchaser and requested the sellers to execute the sale deed of his share in favour of the said Respondent No.2/plaintiff no.2. Accordingly, the Appellant was impleaded only as a proforma party to the suit and the relief was sought in favour of Respondent No.2/plaintiff no.2.

3.2. During the pendency of the suit, the contesting parties arrived at a compromise and an application bearing I.A. No. 1452/1994 was filed agreeing to passing of a decree for specific performance on the terms set out in the said application. However, due to the pendency of another suit i.e., CS(OS) No. 2278/1992 filed by Respondent No.10/defendant no.5, the final order in the said application was deferred.

3.3. In the interregnum, Respondent No.2/plaintiff no.2 by an onward nomination assigned its rights, under the ATS in favour of Respondent No.3/plaintiff no.3 vide agreement dated 24th April, 1995.

3.4. Thereafter, on 09th August, 2010, a comprehensive application i.e., I.A. 10905/2010 was filed by the contesting parties seeking decree of specific performance in favour of Respondent No.1/plaintiff no.1, Respondent No.3/plaintiff no.3 and Respondent No.10/defendant no.5. The original contesting defendants i.e., Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8/defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 were also parties to this application. The contesting parties, therefore, prayed for a decree of specific performance in terms of I.A. No. 1452/1994 and I.A. No. 10905/2010 with respect to the Agricultural land with a Poultry Farm in Village Ghitorni, Mehrauli, New Delhi, bearing Khasra Nos. 377/1 [3-3], 378/1 Min [2-14], 386 [4-16], 387 [4-16], 388 [2-13] and 389 [1-18] making a total complement of twenty Bighas and Land at Village Narsinghpur, District Gurgaon, forming part of Khewat No.26, Khata No.47, Rectangle No.24, Plots No.11/2 [5-2], 20 [8-0], 22/1/1 [2-8], 12/2 [8-0], 21 [8-0], 19/2 [6-0]; out of Rectangle No.25, Plots No.15 [3-0], 16 [7-2], 25/1 [4-18]; and out of Rectangle No.27, Plots No. 1/1 [6-17], 2/1/1 [0-1], 10/3 [3-6], 11/1 [0-5], thirteen pieces in all making a total area complement of about sixty-two Kanals, nineteen Marlas (`subject property').

3.5. In the year 2013, the Appellant/plaintiff no.6 herein stated that it was not a signatory to I.A. No. 1452/1994 and I.A. No. 10905/2010 and therefore opposed the passing of the decree of specific performance. The Appellant/plaintiff no.6 alleged that on 01st May, 2013 it has revoked the nomination dated 05th January, 1991 executed in favour of Respondent No.2/plaintiff no.2. The Appellant filed applications opposing the passing of the consent decree.

3.6. The learned Single Judge allowed I.A. No. 1452/1994 and I.A. No. 10905/2010 and on 25th January, 2019 (`Decree') decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of Respondent No.1/plaintiff no.1, Respondent No.3/plaintiff no.3 and Respondent No.10/defendant no.5 and against Respondent Nos. 6 to 8/defendant nos. 1 to 3.

3.7. The Appellant/plaintiff no.6 was claiming rights under the ATS and since