Deepali Kalia-
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Ashok Bhushan held “An agreement or compromise which is clearly void or voidable shall not be deemed to be lawful and the bar under Rule 3A shall be attracted if a compromise on the basis of which decree was passed was void or voidable.”
It was also observed by the Bench that the lone remedy which is available to a party of a consent decree to avoid such consent is to approach the Court that had recorded the compromise and a separate suit is not maintainable.
In the present case, plaintiffs had filed a suit to challenge a compromise decree which he contended was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff stated that the consent which he gave therefore for the compromise was not free consent.
The Trial Court and High Court had held that the suit was barred under the Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff in the instant case had prayed to the Apex Court to declare the decree passed in O.S. No. 37 of 1984 as sham and ultra-vires, nominal, unsustainable, collusive, unenforceable invalid, and not binding on the plaintiffs.
The Bench arrived at the following judgment in the instant case:“We have noted the grounds as contained in the plaint to challenge the consent decree in foregoing paragraphs from which it is clear that the compromise, which was recorded on 06.08.1984 was sought to be termed as not lawful, i.e., void or voidable. On the basis of grounds which have been taken by the plaintiff in Suit No.1101 of 1987, the only remedy available to the plaintiff was to approach the court in the same case and satisfy the court that compromise was not lawful. Rule 3A was specifically added by the amendment to bar separate suit to challenge the compromise decree which according to legislative intent to arrest the multiplicity of proceedings. We, thus, do not find any error in the judgment of trial court and High Court holding that Suit No.1101 of 1987 was barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A.”
