2011 AIR CC 2233 (KAR) ::2011 (3) AIR Kant HCR 83 ::2011 (3) AIR Kar R 83 ::(2012) 1 CurCC 481 ::(2011) 2 KCCR 1462 ::(2011) 4 Kant LJ 200 ::2011 (105) AIC (SOC) 32 (KAR)

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Ashok B. Hinchigeri , J

( A ) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O. 23 , R. 3A (as amended by Amendment Act 104 of 1976), S. 96(3) — Compromise decree — Appeal against — On ground that compromise was not lawful — No appeal maintainable against compromise decree — Remedy available to aggrieved party is to approach Court which recorded alleged compromise — However, if party was stranger to compromise decree — Can file separate suit against compromise decree — But no appeal maintainable against compromise decree.Order 23 Rule 3-A contains prohibition that no suit can be filed to challenge the compromise decree. It is inserted by Amendment Act 104 of 1976. It prohibits a suit to set aside decree on ground that compromises was not lawful. After commencement of the said amendment with effect from 1-2-1977, only forum left to aggrieved party for challenging compromise decree, is Court which has passed such decree on basis of compromise. No independent suit challenging compromise on ground of fraud or otherwise is competent in view of this specific bar provided in Rule 3-A of Order 23 of CPC. Rule 3-A has been inserted only to ensure finality of litigation. It bars filing of suit for cancellation of a compromise decree on ground of compromise not being lawful. (Paras12)Remedy available to a party to compromise decree to avoid such a consent decree is to approach Court, which recorded compromise arrangement by making necessary petition in same proceedings. Howe....