Consent decrees create estoppels by judgment and cannot be altered unless vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake.

Order on Board

27.03.2025

1. Heard on admission.

2. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon in MJC No. 1 of 2023 dated 3.2.2024 whereby an application moved by the petitioners under Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.

3. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a civil suit for partition and declaration seeking declaration that the will deed executed by the mother of the parties in favour of defendant No.1/Mahesh Kumar is null and void. The suit property is described in Schedules A, B and C. Initially, the suit property was recorded in the name of late Shri Sheshnarayan. After his death, his wife Smt. Dharam Kunwar Bai was looking after the property until her death on 23.12.2020. On 12.6.2014, late Smt. Dharam Kunwar Bai executed a will deed in favour of defendant No.1 – Mahesh Kumar. According to the plaintiffs, the will is forged, as no such will deed was executed by her in favour of defendant No.1. During the pendency of the suit, the parties decided to enter into a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, and an application was filed on 12.7.2022. The said application was withdrawn by the parties, and a similar application was moved on 16.2.2023. The application was accompanied by affidavits of the parties. Learned trial Court recorded statements of both parties, and a compromise decree was drawn on 17.2.2023, in terms of the application for compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. The petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application under Section 151 of CPC, inter-alia, on the ground that the properties mentioned in clauses (छ) and (ज) could not be divided evenly between the plaintiffs and defendants due to a typographical mistake. The said application has been rejected by the learned Court below vide order dated 3.2.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application moved under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC dated 16.2.2023 would make it clear that in all clauses except (छ) and (ज), the description of property and division between the parties were expressly mentioned, however, in clauses (छ) and (ज), the property could not be divided between the petitioners and respondents. He would contend that therefore, an application was moved to rectify this mistake, which was rejected by the learned trial Court. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Compack Enterprises India Private Limited vs. Beant Singh , (2021) 3 SCC 702

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. She would submit that the property mentioned in clause (छ) is already recorded in the name of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 by virtue of the will deed, therefore, there was no need to divide it amongst the other members of the family. She would further submit that the statements of the parties were recorded before the Court below and no objection was raised, and after considering the application moved under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and the statements of the parties, the learned trial Court passed the compromise decree on 17.2.2023. She would also submit that there was no typographical mistake, the terms and conditions of the application moved under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC were recorded intentionally, and parties were aware of these facts. She placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Ajanta LLP vs. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha D/B/A Casio Computer Company Limited and Another, (2022) 5 SCC 449

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

7. In the matter of Beant Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that consent decrees are intended to create estoppel by judgment against the parties, thereby putting an end to further litigation between the parties. It was also held that a consent