No Appeal Lies Against Compromise Decree, Party May Only Challenge Consent Decree Before Court Which Passed It: J&K High Court

Reaffirming the principle that no appeal lies against a compromise decree the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court court has emphasised that a party seeking to avoid such a decree must challenge it before the court that issued it, proving the invalidity of the underlying agreement.Dismissing three connected petitions involving a compromise decree passed by the National Lok Adalat at Pulwama Justice M.A Chowdhary cited Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors.” reported as (2006) and reiterated, “...since no appeal would lie against a compromise decree, the only option available to a party seeking to avoid such a decree would be to challenge the consent decree before the court that passed the same and to prove that the agreement forming the basis for the decree was invalid”.The petitions arose from a marital dispute between Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat (petitioner) and his wife, Sheeraza Akhter (respondent). The couple, married with two daughters, faced irreconcilable differences, leading to a series of legal battles.Initially, Sheeraza filed a petition under Section 488 CrPC, seeking maintenance. While interim maintenance was granted, the case was later resolved in the National Lok Adalat through a compromise. The petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 7 lakh, transfer 10 marlas of land, and provide Rs. 3,500 monthly for the children, besides divorcing the respondent. However, Mushtaq subsequently challenged the Lok Adalat award, claiming it was obtained through misrepresentation.Mushtaq argued that the Lok Adalat award was invalid, alleging it was secured through coercion and misrepresentation. He contended that its enforcement amounted to an abuse of legal process, as the award's terms were unreasonable and beyond his consent.The respondents maintained that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding maintenance obligations, leaving his wife and minor daughters in financial distress. They argued that the award was a result of mutual consent and that coercive measures, such as arrest, were justified to ensure compliance.After meticulously analyzed the case, Justice Chowdhary observed that awards passed by Lok Adalats, under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, are equivalent to civil court decrees. Such awards, based on mutual compromises, are final and binding, and no appeal lies against them, he stated. “When Lok Adalat disposes of the cases in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties to a suit, after following principles of equity and natural justice, every such award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and such decree shall be final and binding upon the parties”, the court remarked. The court further found the petitioner's repeated legal challenges to be an abuse of the judicial process as his counsel's unequivocal statement confirmed that the petitioner was fully aware of and consented to the terms of the compromise.“.. What can be gathered from the pleadings of the case is that the petitioner is trying to distance himself from the contents of the compromise deed, while as his counsel Mr.G.M.Yatoo has confirmed the fact that the petitioner is well aware of the contents of the compromise deed, to which he has been a marginal witness and also as a legal advisor”, the court recorded. Upholding the actions of the trial court in executing the award, including issuing non-bailable warrants the court ruled that such measures were lawful, given the petitioner's failure to honor his obligations under the compromise.Observing that the petitioner failed to provide any legitimate grounds to challenge the Lok Adalat award or the subsequent execution proceedings the court dismissed the petition. Case Title: Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat Vs Sheeraza Akhtar Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 7Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

No Appeal Lies Against Compromise Decree, Party May Only Challenge Consent Decree Before Court Which Passed It: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags