Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
Daljeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Johar Towers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
RFA 263 Of 2003
Decided On : 13-11-2024
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLIII Rule 1A(2) - Recall of compromise order - Appellant seeks recall of order dated 24.05.2012, claiming coercion in agreeing to terms - Court finds no evidence of coercion and upholds the compromise, directing respondent to execute sale deed for entire third floor of property, subject to regularisation by MCD. (Paras 24, 39.1)
(B) Consent Decree - Nature and implications - Consent decree is a record of a contract between parties, not a decision of the court; thus, it does not operate as res judicata. (Paras 19.1, 19.2)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arises from two suits regarding the sale of property, leading to a compromise order in 2012, which the appellant now seeks to recall, alleging coercion and non-compliance by the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court finds no evidence of coercion and upholds the compromise, directing the respondent to execute a sale deed for the entire property after regularisation.
Issues: Whether the appellant was coerced into the compromise and the implications of the consent decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence for coercion and the nature of consent decrees necessitate upholding the compromise order.
Result: Applications disposed of as per directions.
JUDGMENT :
(Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.)
CM APPL. 47591/2022
CM APPL. 34855/2023
By way of CM APPL. No. 47591/2022 filed under Order XLIII Rule 1A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the appellant seeks recall of order dated 24.05.2012 made in the present proceedings, whereby the present regular first appeal alongwith RFA No.193/2003, were disposed-of as settled and satisfied in terms of the observations in that order; or, in the alternate, for modification of that order and a direction to the respondent to obtain a sanctioned building plan from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) alongwith the structural building certificate to comply with that order. By way of CM APPL. No. 34855/2023 filed under section 151 CPC, the respondent seeks dismissal of CM APPL. No. 47591/2022 and modification of order dated 31.01.2023 passed by this court, whereby the respondent was directed to take steps for regularisation of property being the Third Floor of property bearing No. B-2/88, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (‘suit property’).
2. Notice on CM APPL. No. 47591/2022 was issued on 09.11.2022. No formal notice was issued on CM APPL. No. 34855/2023 and vide order dated 12.07.2023, it was observed that this application would be considered alongwith CM APPL No. 47591/2022.
3. The record shows that vide order dated 12.07.2023, the delay of about 3717 days in filing CM APPL. No. 47591/2022 was condoned and further proceedings in the execution petition pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Saket District Court, New Delhi (‘ADJ’), arising from compromise order dated 24.05.2012, were stayed by this court, until further orders.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
4. The matter arises from 02 suits decided by the learned Trial Court. Suit No. 374/98 was filed by the respondent/M/s Johar Towers Pvt. Ltd. inter-alia seeking declaration, possession and mesne profit against the appellant in respect of the suit property; and Suit No.25/2000 was filed by the appellant/Daljeet Singh seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.03.1997. Both suits were dismissed vide common judgment dated 21.11.2002 and the connected appeals arising from that judgment were disposed-of by this court vide compromise order dated 24.05.2012.
5. A perusal of compromise order dated 24.05.2012 shows that it proceeded on an agreement between the parties that the appellant would pay to the respondent an additional sum of Rs. 59 lacs, in consideration whereof the respondent was required to execute in favour of the appellant a sale deed in respect of the suit property and to have the sale deed registered in accordance with law. Order dated 24.05.2012 is reproduced below :
2. The expenses of the stamp duty and the registration charges with respect to the sale deed will be borne by Sh.Daljeet Singh.
3. The amount which has to be paid by Sh.Daljeet Singh/respondent to M/s. Johar Towers Pvt. Ltd./appellant can be paid either directly to M/s. Johar Towers Pvt. Ltd./appellant or through their Advocate Sh. Vijay Kishan or the same can be deposited in the Court.
4. As already stated above, on the amo
The court upheld the compromise order, finding no evidence of coercion, and directed the respondent to execute a sale deed for the entire property after regularisation.
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.
(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 suit challenging a compromise decree not challenged, but the compromise itself is called into question, would be barred by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. Additionally, a third party,....
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.
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....
A consent decree obtained through fraud is void, and courts must investigate claims of fraud before accepting the decree as valid.
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....
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
