Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3287
$-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV + CS(OS) 244/2021, CC 4/2022, I.A. 7367/2021, I.A. 22171/2022, I.A.22176/2022, I.A. 18405/2023, and I.A. 21242/2023 Between: -
SH. VIPIN WADHWA S/O SH. H.C. WADHWA R/O H. No 58, FD BLOCK, PITAMPURA, DELHI 110034 ....PLAINTIFF (Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Adv..)
AND
1. M/S PRASHANT ENTERPRISES (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) HAVING OFFICE AT C-38, RAJOURI GARDEN, DELHI
2. SH. JASBEER SINGH S/O LATE SH. MAHINDER SINGH R/O C-38, RAJOURI GARDEN, DELHI
3. SH. HARJEET SINGH S/O LATE SH. MAHINDER SINGH R/O C-38, RAJOURI GARDEN, DELHI
4. SH. BALBIR SINGH S/O SH. GURBACHAN SINGH R/O E-61, MANSAROVER GARDEN, DELHI-110015 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
5. SH. INDER PAL SINGH S/O SH. GURBACHAN SINGH R/O E-61, MANSAROVER GARDEN, DELHI-110015
6. SH. RAVINDER BHATIA S/O SH. SATPAL BHATIA R/O D-8/12, MODEL TOWN, DELHI-110009
7. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DDA)
THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN VIKAS SADAN, INA, NEW DELHI-110023
8. SH. A.K. JAIN S/O SH. C.L. JAIN RIO 181, VAISHALI, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI - 110088 MOB. NO. 9811057984 ....DEFENDANTS (Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Luthra, Advocate for D-2 & 3.
Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Ms. Pooja Jha, Mr. Sahil Sharma and Ms. Geeta Rani, Advs. for D-5 & 6.
Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, SC with Ms. Aditya Verma, Mr. Bir Inder Guram and Mr. Shubham, Advs. for D-7.
Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Adv. With Ms. Pritha Sukumar, Mr. Sulabh Rewari, Mr. Amer Vaid and Ms. Saumya Sinha, Advs. for D-8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % Reserved on: 02.05.2025 Pronounced on: 02.07.2025 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A challenge to a consent decree must be brought before the court that issued it, with specific performance claims subject to strict limitation periods.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 and Order XII Rule 6 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Consent Decree - Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30.06.1999, time-barred as filed in 2021, six years after the last date fixed for performance, 23.10.1999. Consent decree of 03.02.2020 cannot be challenged in separate suit due to bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A. The plaintiff cannot contest validity of compromise effectively because the law requires that challenges must be made in the original court that recorded the decree. Suit rejected. (Paras 6-7, 25-26, 30, 66-67)
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
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
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
