M/S. SREE SURYA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS versus N. SAILESH PRASAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1081 · Decided: 09-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1081
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1081
1081
M/S. SREE SURYA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS
v.
N. SAILESH PRASAD AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 439 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 09, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or. XXIII r.3A – Challenge to
Compromise Decree by instituting a separate suit – Maintainability
of – Held: Or.XXIII r.3A states that no suit shall lie to set aside a
decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is
based was not lawful – A party challenging a consent decree based
on compromise has to approach the same court, which recorded the
compromise and institution of a separate suit challenging the consent
decree is not maintainable – Submission of plaintiff that in the suit
he has not specifically prayed for setting aside the Compromise
decree rather prayed to declare that the Compromise Decree is not
binding on him is not acceptable – A mere clever drafting would
not permit the plaintiff to make the suit maintainable which otherwise
is barred by law – Decree – Compromise decree.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A plain reading of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC
would show that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the
ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was
not lawful. [Para 8][1090-C]
2. The Trial Court was absolutely justified in rejecting the
plaint on the ground that the suit for the reliefs sought challenging
the Compromise Decree would not be maintainable. Now, so far
as the submission on behalf of the plaintiff that in the suit the
plaintiff has not specifically prayed for setting aside the
Compromise Decree and what is prayed is to declare that the
Compromise Decree is not binding on him and that for the other
reliefs sought, the suit would not be barred and still the suit would
be maintainable is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted.
As held by this Court in a catena of decisions right from 1977
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
that a mere clever drafting would not permit the plaintiff to make
the suit maintainable which otherwise would not be maintainable
and/or barred by law. It has been consistently held by this Court
that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a
cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so
that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage. [Paras 9, 10 ,
10.1][1095-F-H; 1096-A-B]
3. Considering the reliefs of declaration of title, recovery
of possession, cancellation of revocation of Gift Deed, the said
reliefs can be granted only if the Compromise Decree dated
13.01.2016 passed in O.S. No.1750 of 2015 is set aside. Therefore,
by asking such multiple reliefs, the plaintiff by clever drafting
wants to get his suit maintainable, which otherwise would not be
maintainable questioning the Compromise Decree. All the said
reliefs were subject matter of earlier suits and thereafter also
subject matter of O.S. No.1750 of 2015 in which the Compromise
Decree has been passed. Therefore, it is rightly held by the Trial
Court that the suit in the present form and for the reliefs sought
would be barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC and therefore
the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint in exercise of powers
under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The High Court has
erred in setting aside the said order by entering into the merits
of the validity of the Compromise Decree on the ground that the
same was hit by Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC, which was not
permissible at this stage of deciding the application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC and the only issue which was required to be
considered by the High Court was whether the suit challenging
the Compromise Decree would be maintainable or not. [Para
11][1096-G-H; 1097-A-C]
R. Janakiammal v. S.K. Kumarasamy, (2021) 9 SCC
114; T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr., (1977)
4 SCC 467 : [1978] 1 SCR 742; Ram Singh v. Gram
Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364 : [1986] 3
SCR 831 – relied on.
Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi, (1993) 1 SCC 581 : [1992]
3 Suppl. SCR 524; Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder
Singh & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 566 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1083
370; Horil v. Keshav, (2012) 5 SCC 525 : [2012] 3 SCR
1; R. Rajanna v. S.R. Venkataswamy & Ors., (2014) 15
SCC 471 : [2014] 14 SCR 535; Madanuri Sri Rama
Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 :
[2017] 5 SCR 294; Canara Bank v. P. Selathal and
Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 143; Raghwendra Sharan Singh
v. Ram Prasanna Singh, (2020) 16 SCC 601 : [2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.