Dismissal Of Appeal As Withdrawn Not Compromise Decree Unless Court Passes Decree Under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that an appellate order dismissing an appeal as withdrawn does not amount to a compromise decree merely because a written compromise was placed on record, unless the court records its satisfaction and passes a decree in terms of the compromise as required under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar set aside the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Kulgam, holding that the earlier order dated 23.01.2019 was not a compromise decree, but an order permitting withdrawal of the appeal under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.

The Court examined the order dated 23.01.2019 and noted that although a written compromise deed was produced, the Appellate Court neither recorded the statements of the parties nor recorded its satisfaction regarding the compromise, nor did it pass a decree in its terms.

The Court observed “The order passed by the learned Appellate Court… can, by no stretch of reasoning, be termed as an order passed in accordance with the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.”

Instead, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn at the appellant's request, which squarely fell under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.

The High Court reiterated that the right of a plaintiff or appellant to withdraw a suit or appeal without seeking liberty to file afresh is absolute.

It held “Once the appellant expressed her intention to withdraw the appeal… the learned Appellate Court had no choice but to dismiss her appeal as withdrawn.”

By restoring the appeal through the impugned order, the Appellate Court had, in effect, compelled the appellant to pursue an appeal, which was impermissible in law.

Rejecting the respondents' reliance on Section 151 CPC, the Court held that inherent powers cannot be exercised to override an express statutory right.

It clarified that if revenue authorities or other forums wrongly treated the withdrawal order as a compromise decree, the remedy lay elsewhere, observing “That cannot give a cause to the contesting respondents… to reopen the issue with regard to dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.”

The Court concluded that the Appellate Court committed a grave jurisdictional error by construing the withdrawal order as one under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

Case-Title: MEHRAJ AHMAD GANAI AND ANR. Vs MST. SARA BEGUM & ORS, 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order