O.23 R.3A CPC Doesn't Bar Proceedings Instituted By Non-Party Challengers Of Compromise Decrees If They Don't Claim Any Rights: J&K High Court

Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is a legal provision that discourages multiple lawsuits over the same issue. It essentially states that once a court issues a decree based on a lawful compromise between parties in a dispute, neither party can file a separate lawsuit to challenge the validity of that compromise decree.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal made these observations while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioners had challenged an order passed by the Court of Munsiff, Pulwama, dismissing their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.

They contended that the respondents, who were not parties to the compromise decree, had no standing to file a suit challenging the said decree. On the other hand, the respondents argued that as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, they had the right to initiate the suit.

After meticulously analysing the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 and Rule 3-A of the CPC and referring to various legal precedents including Triloki Nath Singh Vs. Anirudh Singh and Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through LR Sadhna Rai (Smt) vs. Rajinder Singh, the court emphasized that a party challenging a compromise decree must approach the court which recorded the compromise.

Expounding on the circumstances as to when a consent decree can be avoided by a party to a consent decree the Court referenced the judgements in Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) vs. Rajinder Singh and R. Janakiammal vs. S.K. Kumarasamy which highlighted that a party to a compromise decree can only challenge it through an application under Order 23 Rule 3-A if their consent was not freely obtained.

Deliberating further on the matter the court highlighted that the bar under Order 23 Rule 3-A does not apply to individuals who are not claiming any right through a party to the compromise decree and added,

“The learned trial court has rightly come to conclusion that neither the original plaintiff nor her predecessor-in-interest was party to the compromise decree as such the bar contained under Order 23 Rule 3-A was not applicable in the case”.

The bench further went on to record,

“This Court is of the considered view that the bar contained under Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC shall not be applicable to a stranger to the compromise decree challenging the compromise decree provided he is not claiming any right through a party to the compromise decree. The learned trial court has rightly come to conclusion that neither the original plaintiff nor her predecessor-in-interest was party to the compromise decree as such the bar contained under Order 23 Rule 3-A was not applicable in the case”.

In light of the said legal position, the petition was dismissed hence affirming the decision of the trial court.

Case Title: Ghulam Nabi Khanday Vs Mushtaq Ahmad

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment