A partition suit was filed in 1978 and after the decision of the Trial Court, the matter went in the first appeal and eventually in the second appeal before the High Court.
During the pendency of first appeal being in continuation of the suit, one of the parties to the pending proceedings, namely, Sampatiya, allegedly entered into a sale deed with the appellant on the 6th January 1984, was still inchoate and not finally decided.
The claim of the appellant was to be governed by the decision in favour of or against Sampatiya in the pending appeal.
The alleged transaction effected in favour of the appellant by a sale deed dated 6th January 1984 ought to abide by the outcome of the said proceedings which culminated with the compromise decreed passed by the High Court in Second Appeal.
Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC render the suit to be not maintainable under Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC. The objection of the Defendant barred by law and deserves to be dismissed. Order 23 Rule 3A, Code of Civil Procedure provides that no suit.
Arguments before the Court
A plaintiff alleging that a compromise decree was obtained by defendants by fraud and misrepresentation concealing the silent fact from the High Court that the sale deed was executed much before the compromise being executed between the parties to the proceedings.
Appellants claim right, title and interest over the land referred to in the stated sale deed 6th January 1984, which was purchased by him from Sampatiya and party to the suit.
Issue before the Court
The issue before the Apex Court in this appeal was whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to proceedings in a separate suit. The contention of the appellant was that provision of Order 23 Rule 3A CPC applies only to the parties to the suit.
The provision does not apply to a stranger to the compromise decree, therefore, the remedy is always open to a stranger to the compromise decree to file a separate suit to his grievance in the appropriate proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Supreme Court held that the scheme of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and permit parties to amicably come to a lawful settlement, in writing and voluntary act on the part of the parties.
The court can be instrumental in having an agreed compromise effected and finally attached to the same. The court should never be a party to the imposition of compromise upon an unwilling party, still open to be questioned on an application under the provision to Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC before the Court.
The appellant can only claim through his predecessor Sampatiya, to the rights and remedies available to Sampatiya about the compromise decree.
“The appellant was not a party to the compromise decree in facts of the present case will be no avail to the appellant, give him a cause of action to question the validity of the Compromise decree by the way of substantive suit, before the civil court to declare it as fraudulent, illegal and not binding on him also compromise entered into by the parties to the partition suit, it is only in the High Court who accepted the compromise and passed a decree on that basis. It must follow that the appellant was not maintainable because of the specific bar under Rule 3A OF Order 23 Civil Procedure Code”
Further, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
