Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RANJAN SHARMA
Sardar Manjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Guljit Singh Kochhar S/o Late S. Manohar Singh Kochha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Sardar Harjit Singh against order dated 31st May, 2024, passed in OMP No. 220 of 2023 filed in Civil Suit No. 24 of 2018, whereby an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), preferred by respondent No.2 Sardar Guljit Singh Kochhar for setting aside judgment and decree dated 27th June, 2019 passed on the basis of compromise between appellant Sardar Harjit Singh Kochhar and respondent No.1 Sardar Manjeet Singh Kochhar in Civil Suit No. 24 of2018, has been allowed by recalling the said judgment and decree by holding that the same has been obtained by concealing the material facts with regard to pendency of civil suit in Delhi High court.
2. It is also apt to record that after recalling the judgment and order, for the assessed value of suit as Rs.95 lacs on account of increase of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge, vide order dated 11th September, 2024, the suit has been directed to be sent to the District Judge, Shimla for its disposal as per law with direction to the parties, through their respective counsel, to appear before the Court of District Judge S
A stranger to a compromise decree cannot challenge it under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC; inherent powers exist to recall orders obtained by fraud.
Courts hold inherent power to recall judgments if obtained through fraud or concealed material facts; non-parties cannot challenge compromise decrees under CPC provisions.
A consent decree obtained through fraud is challengeable by a third party, and such a challenge does not require an independent suit.
(1) Breach of compromise – Only remedy available to aggrieved party is to approach court that recorded compromise under proviso to Order 23, Rule 3 of CPC.(2) When there is a statutory remedy availab....
A separate suit to set aside a compromise decree is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC, and challenges to such decrees must be raised in the court that issued them.
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – In exercising powers under Section 151 of CPC, it cannot be said that civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues – Recalling a f....
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
