Back
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Nikhil S. Kariel, J.
Prakash Robin Nayudu – Petitioner
versus
Rev. Imanuel S. Kant – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No.10424 of 2022 with R/Special Civil Application No.10426 of 2022
Decided on 20.1.2023
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXIII Rule 3A – Compromise decree – Challenge to compromise – 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 – Prayer questioning compromise based upon which decree was passed without any challenge to compromise decree itself would, if granted, lead to decree itself being rendered non est and ineffective – Such a suit whereby plaintiff has, by clever drafting, circumvented the provision by which suit would be barred, is not permissible – Instant suit where plaintiff has questioned compromise on the basis of which suit had been decreed without challenging decree itself, would also be barred under provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. (Paras 9.1, 10, 13.1 and 13.2)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXIII Rule 3A read with Order XLVII and Section 96(1) – Compromise decree – Challenge as to – Remedy available to an aggrieved party who was not a party to suit or compromise, would be to challenge decree passed by Court on basis of compromise between parties to suit under Section 96(1) of CPC, with leave of Appellate Court – Such a party could also file review application before Court which passed decree, as may be permissible under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC. (Para 12)
Result: Special Civil Applications rejected.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Heard learned Advocate Mr. Y.S. Ravani appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Asim Pandya appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt for the respondents No.15, 16, and 17 in Special Civil Application No.10424 of 2022 and for the respondents No.9 and 12 in Special Civil Application No.10426 of 2022.
2. Since both the petitions challenge the very selfsame decision i.e. the judgement and order dated 6.5.2022 in CMA No.18 of 2022 and No.19 of 2022, both the petitions are taken up for hearing jointly and decided vide the present common order.
3. It appears that CMA No.18 of 2022 had been filed by the original defendants No.15 to 19 in Regular Civil Suit No.46 of 2019 and whereas the judgement passed by the learned lower Appellant Court in CMA No.18 of 2022 is challenged in SCA No.10424 of 2022 and CMA No.19 of 2022 had been filed by the original defendants No.9, and 11 to 14 in Regular Civil Suit No.46 of 2019 and whereas the judgement passed by the learned lower Appellant Court in CMA No.19 of 2022 is challenged in SCA No.10426 of 2022.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petitions, shorn off unnecessary details, are mentioned herein below:—
4.1. It appears that the Regular Civil Suit No.93 of 2001, Regular Civil Suit No.104 of 2001 and Regular Civil Suit No.108 of 2010 had been preferred by the Methodist Church of India, praying for various reliefs. RCS No.93 of 2001 had been preferred inter alia praying for a declaration that the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit property as the lessee and that the possession of the plaintiff upon the said property was legal and proper. The plaintiff had also sought for an injunction against the respondents against obstructing the plaintiff in enjoying the suit property in any manner whatsoever. It appears that during the pendency of the said suit, since the defendants appear to have transacted with regard to the property in question, therefore, amendment had been prayed for bringing subsequent developments on record and whereas it appears that a sale deed dated 29.7.2011 by the defendants No.3 and 4 in favour of the defendants No.5 to 9 was called into question.
4.2. Insofar as RCS No.104 of 2001 was concerned, the said suit was in the nature of challenging two revenue entries being Entry No.4261 and Entry No.15076. RCS No.108 of 2010 challenged a registered sale deed dated 25.6.2008, whereby the defendant No.1 had conveyed the property in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3. Consequential interim prayers had also been sought for. It appears that certain interim orders had been passed and whereas the same had been challenged, which challenge does not appear to have succeeded and whereas, since those aspects are not much relevant for deciding the present petitions, the same are not being referred herein.
4.3. It appears that later on the parties i.e. the plaintiff and the defendants had arrived at a settlement and whereas a settlement deed had been submitted in the lead matter being RCS No.93 of 2009 by way of Exh.116 dated 8.10.2018 and based upon such settlement, while RCS No.93 of 2001 had been decreed and whereas RCS No.104 of 2001 and RCS No.108 of 2010 had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs. It appears that while the settlement purshis had been signed by the respondent No.1 herein, more particularly in his capacity as Executive Secretary of Gujarat Regional Conference of Methodist Church in India and whereas it also appears that later on the said decision had been ratified by the Church itself.
4.4. It appears that the present petitioners, who are claiming to be beneficiaries of the Methodist Church in India, had preferred Special Civil Suit No.46 of 2019, whereby the plaintiffs had challenged the settlement on basis of which the settlement purshis had been tendered before the learned Civil Court. Various other prayers also had been sought for in the said Civil Suit being RCS No.46 of 2019 filed on 20.5.2019. It appears that vide j
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.
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,....
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 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 decree based on disputed consent terms is maintainable under Section 96 of the CPC, bypassing the restrictions applied to true consent decrees.
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
