LexDALJIT KAUR AND ANR. versus MUKTAR STEELS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 1043 DALJIT KAUR AND ANR. v. MUKTAR STEELS PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 10755 of 2013) NOVEMBER 19, 2013 [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Code of Civil Proce.dure, 1908- s. 96(3) and OrderXL/11 A B r. 1 A. - Appeal against consent decree - Maintainability - Held: When decree is passed on the basis of compromise 'C without raising any dispute to the compromise, appea(.would not be maintainable - But if the decree is passed after holding an enquiry with regard to the validity of the compromise, decree cannot be called consent decree, and hence appeal would be maintainable - In the facts of the present case, the D High Court rightly held that the decree was consent decree. ' Appellant No.1-Plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents-defendants. During pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise. Application for E re.cording the compromise and passing decree in terms thereof was filed. The plaintiff disputed the compromise. The trial court decreed the suit on the basis of the compromise, The appeal against the decree was d.ismissed by first appellate court, holding that no appeal would lie u/s.96(3) CPC, against a consent decree. High Court, in second appeal, upheld the view taken by the first appellate court .. Hence __ the present appeal. · F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The defendants-respondents had raised a dispute with regard to validity of the c.ompromise and the concerned court had conducted an enquiry. Thus; a decree had been passed on the basis of the compromise ' G 1043 ~ 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 17 S.C.R. A based on that enquiry and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a consent decree. When a decree is passed without any dispute being raised or contested in the court of first instance, the decree being passed on consent cannot be B appealed against. [Para 17] [1052-H; 1053-A-C] Kishun alias Ram Kishun (dead) through LRs. vs. Behari (dead) by LRs. (2005) 6 SCC 300: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 383 - relied on. Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai C (Smt.) vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 566: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 370 - distinguished. 2. The High Court adverted to the facts relating to the manner in which the compromise decree had been 0 passed and opined that the enquiry conducted by the trial Judge related to the evidence brought on record had been rested on proper application of oral and documentary evidence. On the aforesaid analysis, the High Court has concurred with the conclusion of the first E appellate court that the decree in question was a consent decree. Thus, the High Court, after stating the facts and referring to the documents by which it has been recorded and further taking note of the fact how the settlement had been acted upon by both the parties, has expressed its opinion and hence, it cannot really be found fault with. F [Para 18] [1053-E-H; 1054-A] Case Law Reference: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 370 distinguished Para 14 G 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 383 relied on Para 16 H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10755 of 2013. From the Judgment & Order dated 07 .03.2013 of the High DALJIT KAUR v. MUKTAR STEELS PVT. LTD. 1045 ' Court of A.P. at Hyderabad in SA No. 285 of 2008. A P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Venkat Reddy, Vijay Kumar Paradesi, Anil Kumar Tandale for the Appellants. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. . B c 3. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.3.2013 passed in Second •. Appeal No. 285 of 2008 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby the learned single Judge has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court concurring with D the view that the decree being a consent decree was not assailable in appeal, and further giving the stamp of approval to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge, after conducting due enquiry as envisaged under the proviso to Order XXlll Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), had passed a consent E decree. 4. The broad essential facts giving rise to the appeal are that the first respondent instituted OS No. 2261 of 1988 in the Court of IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration to the effect that the agreements and arrangements. F between the parties are in the nature of "Industrial Licenc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.