Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Banwari Lal VS Chando Devi...
1992 0 Supreme(SC) 904 : Under Order 43, Rule 1A(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, a party can challenge a compromise decree in an appeal against the decree, even if the compromise was recorded without the consent of one party. The rule allows the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should not have been recorded, despite Section 96(3) of the Code, which bars appeals from decrees passed with the consent of the parties. This remedy is available when the factum of compromise is disputed, and the court must determine whether the compromise was lawful under Rule 3 of Order 23, particularly if it was not signed by both parties or is void under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court may recall the order recording the compromise if it finds the compromise was not lawful, as seen in cases where the compromise petition was not signed by the respondent or was based on fraud.Checking relevance for Ripudaman Singh VS Tikka Maheshwar Chand...
Checking relevance for Prasanta Kumar Sahoo VS Charulata Sahu...
2023 4 Supreme 421 : Under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a compromise decree can be challenged by a party who did not consent to it by filing a cross-appeal against the decree, provided the compromise is challenged on the ground that it should not have been recorded. This right is available under Order XLI Rule 22 read with Order XLIII Rule 1-A(2) of the CPC. The court must examine whether the compromise was lawful, and if it was void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, it cannot be deemed lawful. The court is required to apply its judicial mind to verify the genuineness and lawfulness of the compromise before recording it. A party challenging the compromise can do so during an appeal against the decree, even if the compromise was recorded with the consent of other parties, as Section 96(3) of the CPC does not bar such an appeal when the validity of the compromise is in dispute.Checking relevance for TRILOKI NATH SINGH VS ANIRUDH SINGH(D) THR. LRS...
2020 0 Supreme(SC) 366 : A stranger to a compromise decree cannot challenge it by filing a separate suit. Rule 3A of Order 23 CPC explicitly bars any suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful. The only remedy available to a party (including a stranger) is to raise the issue of the compromise''''s validity during an appeal against the decree, under Rule 1A(2) of Order 43 CPC, by contending that the compromise should not have been recorded. This is the sole permissible avenue to challenge a compromise decree, even for non-parties, and no independent suit is maintainable.Checking relevance for Vipan Aggarwal VS Raman Gandotra...
2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1438 : A party challenging a compromise decree can file a petition under the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or an appeal under Section 96(1) of the CPC, in which they can question the validity of the compromise, including allegations of fraud or collusion. The court before which the compromise was recorded has jurisdiction to hear such an application, and the remedy is maintainable even if the compromise decree was passed without the consent of one party, provided the challenge is based on grounds such as fraud, collusion, or the compromise being void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act.Checking relevance for Hussainbhai Allarakhbhai Dariaya VS State of Gujarat...
2010 0 Supreme(SC) 807 : A person who is not a party to a suit can challenge a compromise decree by filing a second appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the compromise was entered into in a representative suit (as defined under Rule 3B of Order 23) without obtaining the court''''s leave and without giving notice to persons interested in the suit. This is applicable when the decree passed in the suit binds persons not named as parties, by virtue of provisions in the Code or any other law. The challenge is based on the invalidity of the compromise due to non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 3B, particularly the absence of court leave and notice to interested persons.
