Order 23 Rule 3A | Bar To Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Not Attracted When Compromise Recorded But Suit Not Disposed: Bombay HC
10 months, 1 week ago

Order 23 Rule 3A | Bar To Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Not Attracted When Compromise Recorded But Suit Not Disposed: Bombay HC

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court recently observed that bar under Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC on a suit against a compromise decree is not attracted when a compromise is merely recorded in the earlier suit but the suit is not yet disposed.A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain allowed an appeal against a trial court order declaring a suit non-maintainable observing that. The Bombay High Court recently observed that bar under Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC on a suit against a compromise decree is not attracted when a compromise is merely recorded in the earlier suit but the suit is not yet disposed. “It is thus clear from the record that there was no decree passed on 4th July, 1995 based on compromise as stated to be recorded below Exhibit-53 in SCS No.268/1978, when the Trial Court proceeded to hold that the subsequent suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code. The court further noted that the earlier suit of 1978 was decided much after the Trial Court held the subsequent of 1994 not maintainable under Order 23 Rule 3A.

Trial Court Order Suit Cpc Rule Recorded Irani Rule 3A No Decree Order 23 Rule Compromise Decree  trial  suit  irani  disposed  compromise  decree  3a  hc  challenging  recorded  court  bombay  rule  order

History of this topic

Order 23 Rule 2 CPC| Limitation For Suit Instituted Afresh Applies As If Earlier Suit Was Never Filed: Jharkhand High Court
3 days, 18 hours ago

Order 23 Rule 2 CPC| Limitation For Suit Instituted Afresh Applies As If Earlier Suit Was Never Filed: Jharkhand High Court

Live Law  

The Jharkhand High Court has under Order 23 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the limitation period for a fresh suit instituted with court permission applies as if the original suit had never been filed. Order 23 CPC pertains to withdrawal and adjustment of suits wherein Rule 2 states that in any fresh suit instituted on permission granted under …

Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Only Remedy Against Compromise Decree Is Recall Application Before Court Which Recorded Compromise : Supreme Court
Trending News
1 week, 5 days ago

Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Only Remedy Against Compromise Decree Is Recall Application Before Court Which Recorded Compromise : Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court ruled that if the compromise entered between the parties was not adhered to, there is no bar to filing a recall application seeking restoration of the proceedings under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the appeal filed against the Rajasthan High Court's …

Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Only Remedy Against Compromise Decree Is Recall Application Before Court Which Recorded Compromise : Supreme Court
Trending News
1 week, 5 days ago

Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Only Remedy Against Compromise Decree Is Recall Application Before Court Which Recorded Compromise : Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court ruled that if the compromise entered between the parties was not adhered to, there is no bar to filing a recall application seeking restoration of the proceedings under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the appeal filed against the Rajasthan High Court's …

[Section 9-A CPC] Trial Court Cannot Frame Issue Which Only Disposes Of The Suit In-Part: Bombay High Court
5 months ago

[Section 9-A CPC] Trial Court Cannot Frame Issue Which Only Disposes Of The Suit In-Part: Bombay High Court

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court has held that under Section 9-A CPC Act, 2018), a Trial Court cannot frame an issue which has the effect of disposing of the suit only in part. The petitioners/plaintiffs challenged the order of the Trial Court in allowing the application of respondents/defendants to frame a preliminary issue of limitation under Section 9-A CPC in the …

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
9 months ago

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

Live Law  

Clarifying the applicability of the bar under Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code to challenge compromise decrees the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently ruled that said bar does not apply to non-party challengers of compromise decrees, provided they are not claiming any right through a party to the compromise decree. After meticulously analysing …

Order 23 Rule 3(A) - Bar On Filing New Suits Only Applicable To Parties Involved In Compromise Decrees, Not To Strangers: J&K High Court
1 year, 2 months ago

Order 23 Rule 3(A) - Bar On Filing New Suits Only Applicable To Parties Involved In Compromise Decrees, Not To Strangers: J&K High Court

Live Law  

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that although Order 23, Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code bars new suits from setting aside a decree based on a lawful compromise, the bar only applies to parties involved in the compromise and does not preclude strangers to the suit from filing independent suits to challenge the compromise …

Order 23 CPC | Defendant Can Be Made Plaintiff Upon Partial Withdrawal Of Suit If No Conflict Of Interest With Original Plaintiff: Bombay High Court
1 year, 8 months ago

Order 23 CPC | Defendant Can Be Made Plaintiff Upon Partial Withdrawal Of Suit If No Conflict Of Interest With Original Plaintiff: Bombay High Court

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court recently held that when a plaintiff withdraws a suit partially, conversion of a defendant to a plaintiff is allowed, provided the defendant's interest against other defendants regarding the subject matter property is identical with the plaintiff's. Justice MM Sathaye set aside a Civil Court order allowing a defendant to be transposed as a plaintiff in a …

Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Vitiated Compromise Decree Can Be Recalled By Same Court, Separate Suit Challenging Such Decree Is Barred: J&K&L High Court
2 years, 3 months ago

Order 23 Rule 3 CPC | Vitiated Compromise Decree Can Be Recalled By Same Court, Separate Suit Challenging Such Decree Is Barred: J&K&L High Court

Live Law  

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday observed that a compromise deed is essentially a contract between the parties superimposed by the decree of the Court and such a decree can be avoided only by approaching the same Court and demonstrating before it that the compromise on the basis of which decree is passed is not lawful. …

Order 14 Rule 2 CPC | Where Suit Involving Mixed Question Of Law & Fact Can Be Disposed On Issue Of Law Alone, Same Must Be Decided First: Manipur HC
2 years, 7 months ago

Order 14 Rule 2 CPC | Where Suit Involving Mixed Question Of Law & Fact Can Be Disposed On Issue Of Law Alone, Same Must Be Decided First: Manipur HC

Live Law  

The Manipur High Court has recently held that Order 14 Rule 2 CPC is a general rule which provides that the Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues, notwithstanding the fact that the case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. "In effect, Order 14 Rule 2 CPC carves out an exception to Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, by …

Whether Filing Of A 'Statement Of Truth' In A Written Statement Is A Mandatory Requirement Under Commercial Courts Act, 2015?: Calcutta High Court Explains
3 years, 3 months ago

Whether Filing Of A 'Statement Of Truth' In A Written Statement Is A Mandatory Requirement Under Commercial Courts Act, 2015?: Calcutta High Court Explains

Live Law  

The Calcutta High Court last week while adjudicating upon a commercial suit expounded in detail whether a 'statement of truth' in a written statement is a mandatory requirement under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and whether its absence warrants the disposal of the defence in the suit. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed while opining on the changes brought in by the …

[Order 23 Rule 3] Statements Recorded Before Court Hold Equal Sanctity As A Written Instrument Of Compromise: P&H HC [Read Order]
4 years, 2 months ago

[Order 23 Rule 3] Statements Recorded Before Court Hold Equal Sanctity As A Written Instrument Of Compromise: P&H HC [Read Order]

Live Law  

"Statements recorded before a Judicial Officer in a Court of law cannot be said to have lesser sanctity then an instrument of Compromise drawn outside the Court attested by some Oath Commissioner/Notary Public or any other authority," held the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently. It was argued that in judgements delivered by the Supreme Court subsequent to Gurpreet' Singh's …

Discover Related