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.

JUDGMENT :

(N.V. Anjaria, J.)

Since in both the cases, the facts have common thread and the issue involved is identical, they were heard together to be treated for final disposal by this common order.

2. These two are the applications filed by the applicants seeking leave to appeal. Civil Application No. 506 of 2023 was treated as lead application.

2.1 By filling this application, the applicants who are the original defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 6 to 13 in the Special Civil Suit, have prayed for grant of leave to prefer appeal in their individual capacity to challenge order dated 21.1.2023 below Exh. 1 and compromise decree dated 21.1.2023 passed by learned 17th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, in Special Civil Suit No. 11 of 2023.

2.2 The said suit was filed by one Dilipbhai Shantilal Thank-respondent No.1 herein, praying for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1.1.2013. The agreement to sell was executed by respondent No.2 by showing him to be in capacity of power of attorney holder of the applicants and the respondent No.3-the original defendants.

2.3 In the other Civil Application No. 505 of 2023, the applicants prayed to grant Leave to Appeal in respect of consent decree of even date passed in Special Civil Suit No. 277 of 2023. The said suit was instituted by the applicants herein for cancellation of the said agreement to sell.

3. Noticing the broad facts, agreement to sell dated 1.1.2013 was executed by the applicants and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of the lands in question situated at Bhaili, Taluka-District – Vadodara. Possession receipt dated 22.1.2016 came to be executed by the applicant in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as well as in favour of respondent No.1. The possession of the land was handed over to the respondent No.1 herein. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff-Dilipbhai of Special Civil Suit No. 11 of 2023.

3.1 As stated, the applicants-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 277 of 2022 against the respondent No.1 seeking relief of cancellation of agreement to sell dated 1.1.2013. The respondent No.1 filed reply and counter claim in the said suit on 6.1.2023. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 instituted Special Civil Suit No. 11 of 2023 on 11.1.2023 praying for decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 1.1.2013 against the defendants.

3.2 In the said Special Civil Suit No. 11 of 2023 as well as in the other Special Civil Suit No. 277 of 2023, a compromise was arrived at dated 13.1.2023 between the parties. As per the compromise, the applicants herein and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein, agreed to execute sale deed in favour of respondent No.1-the original plaintiff in respect of the lands in question.

3.3 The applicants herein now wants to challenge the said decree dated 31.11.2023 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 11 of 2023. They also seek to prefer appeal before this court against the compromise decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 277 of 2023. They have contended in their application for leave to appeal that the agreement to sell in question was allegedly executed by respondent No.2 projecting him to be the power of attorney holder. It was claimed that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 though shown as defendants in the suit, did not have any knowledge about the suit and that any process had not gone to them. The execution of power of attorney was disputed by the applicants. It was further contended that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had already relinquished their rights in the suit property in favour of the applicants as back as in the year 2018, which was prior to the