Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Umesh Kumar S/o Narayan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Lila Bai W/o Late Kishan Lal Ji – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh in Civil case No. 103/2022 by which the court below rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
2. Respondent No.1 herein filed application under Section 151 CPC for cancellation of the compromise decree dated 01.02.2011 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 126/2010. She also filed an application under Order 18 Rule 16 CPC read with Order 19 rule 3 CPC with the prayer that her statement may be recorded. The petitioner no.1 filed reply to the application and raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the application filed under Section 151 CPC. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC with the prayer to reject the said application being barred by limitation. The respondent no.1 filed reply to the said application. The learned trial court after hearing arguments of both the parties rejected the said application by way of impugned order dated 15.04.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
A compromise decree can be challenged under Section 151 CPC if fraud is alleged, but such applications must be filed within the limitation period.
Suit against compromise decree – If compromise decree is tainted by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, Court under inherent powers conferred under Section 151 CPC may rectify decree for alternation....
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 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.
A consent decree obtained through fraud is void, and courts must investigate claims of fraud before accepting the decree as valid.
A party not involved in a compromise decree may challenge it if they do not claim rights through a party to that decree, as per Order 23 Rule 3-A.
A consent decree obtained through fraud is challengeable by a third party, and such a challenge does not require an independent suit.
A party can appeal against a compromise decree to challenge its validity despite Section 96(3) CPC barring appeals against such decrees.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consent of all parties to the compromise memo is required for its amendment, and the amendment sought must fall within the scope of Sectio....
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
