03 October 2009
Sir I need a suggestion if a appeal for challenging compromise decree under the above said rule or section is made then what are the main factors to be taken into consideration for getting the appeal to set aside the said compromise which was signed in the court and whether medical grounds can be used for showing that decree was entered under undue influence or the pressure exerted by the other party who had lodged false police complaints against us which were subsequently withdrawn after the compromise was signed or is there any other provision under CPC to set aside or challenge the compromise decree.
04 October 2009
Aman, U have to file and regular appeal aginst the compromise decree. U can take the medical grounds and the u have to show the circumstrance of influence. In my opinion withdrawl of police complaint is not good ground to take undue influence, because it is hard to prove. Some times criminal cases will be filed against the parties, if it was fled to get the suit compromised then it requires evidence. Good ground to set aside the compromise decree are fraud.
04 October 2009
You can challenge the compromise decree as provided under Order under Order 43 Rule 1A, which is as follows:
Order 43 Rule 1A. Right to challenge non-appealable orders in appeal against decree-
(1) Where any order is made under this Code against a party and thereupon any judgment is pronounced against such party and a decree is drawn up, such party may, in an appeal against the decree, contend that such order should not have been made and the judgment should not have been pronounced.
(2) In an appeal against a decree passed in a suit after recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should, or should not, have been recorded.]
04 October 2009
Dear Aman, Some case laws for your case, these are from both sides you go through it you will get answer for your query----- 1] c. p. c order 23 rule 3- compermise-recoding, under-object of â€“I is to ensure that dispute reaches its finality and does not lead to further litigation-parties settling terms of compromise for reference of matter to third part who would, as agreed, dispose of cetain property and after adjusting outstanding and deducting expenses, the balance was to be given in equal share to perties- compromise being contingent contract dependent upon action of third party- Refusal by court to record it, as such- justified-no interference called for. Juswantraj Punamiya & others v/s M/S H. Choski & co.pt.Ltd. Civil appeal no. 702/1997, decided on 03/02/1997. [S.C.] Supreme Appeals Reporter 1997 [s. c.] 280. 2] c. p. c order 23 rule 3-and section 144 of c. p.c. And Land Acquisition Act ss 18 and 54--- compromise decree passed by High court in first appeal in terms of settlement between parties in â€œLok Adalatâ€â€”state precluded from maintaining any application for relief which travels beyond compromise decree on principles of estoppel and res judicata- Claim for interest not provided for under the terms of the compromise not tenable in proceedings under section 144 of c. p. c. State of Goa v/s Placido Bragaza. Maharashtra Law Journal 2002 370, 3] c. p. c order 23 rule 3- Consent decree- it is only in those cases where consent terms as whole are challenged on ground of fraud, misrepresentation or similar grounds that court can decideâ€”a party cannot seek modification of clause in consent terms and consequently that part of the decree on the ground that same was not intended or agreed by parties. Latabai Narcinha Telang v/s Suresh Narcinha Telang and others. w.p. no. 384 /2004 decided on 06/05/2005. [Bombay High court /Punji â€“Goa Bench] Maharashtra Law Journal 2006 440, 4] c. p. c order 23 rule 3 and order 21 rules 10,24&35â€” Cnsent decree â€“ consent terms arrived at between appellant and respondent in suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell flat in question executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent 16/09/1985- consent terms no substituted by another agreement between parties- both parties failed to comply with their mutual obligations- parties directed to give effect to the terms of consent decree- Appellant is to handover the flat to respondent and respondent to transfer the land in his possession as per order set out. Rangath Haridas v/s Dr. Shrikant Hegade. Civil Appeal No. 3596/2006. decided on 22/08/2006. [S.C.] Maharashtra Law Journal 2006 708, 5] c. p. c order 23 rule 3 and transfer of property Act, section 53 A- Undertaking given by party for specific purpose consent order-Eviction decree-Cross-suit filed by tenant for specific performance of alleged contract of sale-Landlord giving undertaking for specific purpose to effect that the decree shall not be executed till the judgment of the lis relating to the specific performance â€“Drcree o specific performsnce was not granted by court â€“Undertaking must be construed in favour of landlord-The question of eviction of tenant in execution of decree passed in the title suit had only a direct relatitioship with the right of tenant to continue to possess the tenanted premises in furtherance of their plea of partferformance of the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale- Once that right was negatived by the court, tenant coul not resist their eviction pursuant to or in furtherance of eviction decree in execution proceedings. Rekha Mukharjee v/s Ashish Kumar Das & others. Civil Appeal No. 9131/2003. decided on 18/11/ 2003. [s.c.] Maharashtra Law Journal 2004 838,