Back
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
Daljeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Johar Towers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
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 wa
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
