A challenge to a consent decree must be brought before the court that issued it, with specific performance claims subject to strict limitation periods.

JUDGMENT

I.A.22171/2022 and I.A.22176/2022

The instant applications have been filed on behalf of the defendant no. 8. I.A. 22171/2022 is an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and I.A. 22176/2022 is an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, learned senior counsel for defendant no.8 contends that in the present case, the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine as the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is barred by law in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC.

3. He further contends that the suit is also barred as per the first part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which postulates that for specific performance of a contract, the period of limitation is three years from the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, from the date the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. Under the first part of Article 54 , once the date for performance of the contract has been fixed by the parties, the limitation begins to run from that date and specific performance of the contract could be within three years from that date unless the parties, by an agreement, extend the fixed time.

4. He points out that in the present case, as per the agreement, the last date of payment was 23.10.1999; therefore, the institution of the present suit in the year 2021 is ex-facie barred by limitation.

5. He has referred to the stand taken by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in their Written Statement dated 16.07.2010 filed in CS(OS) 2310/2009 and has contended that even assuming the date of knowledge of refusal to be 16.07.2010, the suit is still barred by limitation. In support of his submission that the suit is barred by limitation, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in A. Valliammai v. K.P. Murali , [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1150.] and Fatehji and Company v. L.M. Nagpal and others , [(2015) 8 SCC 390.]

6. The second prong of his submission rests on the bar prescribed under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC. He submits that the consent decree dated 03.02.2020 passed in CS(OS) 2310/2009 cannot be challenged in a separate suit as the plaintiff was a party to the said suit. He submits that Rule 3A of Order XXIII bars a suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree was passed was not lawful and the Court would be justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the said ground.

7. He contends that if the plaintiff has any grievance qua consent decree, he should have approached the same Court, as there is no remedy against the consent decree by way of a separate suit. He argued that while passing the consent decree, the Court had considered the objections of the plaintiff, therefore, at this belated stage, he cannot file a substantive suit to set aside the decree. He further submits that a consent decree cannot be challenged even by a person who was not a party to the compromise decree in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh , [(2020) 6 SCC 629.]

8. With respect to his application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, he has placed reliance on the decision in Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, [(2010) 4 SCC 753.]

9. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, controverts the submissions made on behalf of defendant no.8 and submits that the instant applications are misconceived and merit dismissal at the threshold.

10. On I.A. 22171/2022, learned senior counsel submits that Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC is not applicable to the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2020 passed by this Court in CS(OS) 2310/2009, as the plaintiff was not a party to the said decree. Consequently, the application is liable to be dismissed. He further contends that in deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the contents of the plaint must be taken as gospel truth, an