Consent decrees cannot be challenged by a non-party through a separate suit, relying only on prescribed appeal or review procedures.

JUDGEMENT

1. Learned advocates appearing for the parties have jointly requested that as the issue involved in these applications is similar, all these applications be finally disposed of at an admission stage. Therefore, all these applications are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Rule. Learned AGP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for respondent no.1, learned advocate, Mr. Sachin Vasavada for respondent nos.2 to 6 and learned advocate, Mr. S.D. Motwani for respondent no.7 waive service of notice of Rule.

3. All these Civil Revision Applications are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) by the applicant challenging the order passed by the concerned trial court, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code has been rejected.

4. For the sake of convenience, facts as stated in Civil Revision Application No.228/2021 are considered, which are as under,

4.1 The present applicant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.61/2016 before the concerned trial court against the respondent nos.2 to 6, however during the pendency of the said proceeding, compromise was arrived at between the parties and, therefore on the basis of the said compromise, consent decree dated 07.10.2016 was passed by the concerned trial court.

4.2 Thereafter, the present respondent no.1 i.e. the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, who was not party to the said proceeding, came to know about the consent decree passed by the concerned Court on 07.10.2016, he filed separate Regular Civil Suit No.71/2020 against the present applicant and the respondent nos.2 to 7. In the said plaint, the respondent no.1 herein has challenged the consent decree dated 07.10.2016 passed by the concerned trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.61/2016 on various grounds.

4.3 After filing of the said suit by the respondent no.1, the present applicant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent no.1 is barred by law. In support of the said contention, the applicant has placed reliance upon the Order 23, Rule 3A of the Code.

4.4 The trial court, vide impugned order dated 12.07.2021, rejected the application, Exh.31 filed by the applicant and, therefore, the applicant has filed the present Revision Application.

5. Learned advocate, Mr. Vyas appearing for the applicant has mainly contended that the suit filed by the respondent no.1 challenging the consent decree dated 07.10.2016 is not maintainable in view of the provision contained in Order 23, Rule 3A of the Code. Learned advocate has submitted that the issue involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) Vs. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj, reported in 2020 (1) GLR 586 .

Learned advocate has mainly relied upon the observations made in Paragraph No.40 of the said decision. Learned advocate has, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code be quashed and set aside and thereby the plaint of the respondent no.1 – plaintiff be rejected.

6. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Bhatt appearing for the respondent no.1 – original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No.71/2020 has opposed these applications. It is submitted that the consent decr