LexNAVRATAN LAL SHARMA versus RADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 453 : 2024 INSC 970 Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 14328 of 2024) 12 December 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the right of a party to get the first appeal restored if compromise decree specifically does not give such liberty. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.23 r.3 – Compromise of suit – Suit for declaration and injunction by the appellant – Dismissed by trial court – Appellant filed first appeal – During pendency, compromise reached between parties and in terms thereof, the High Court disposed the first appeal – However, failure of the respondent to comply with compromise terms – Application to restore the appeal filed by the appellant alleging fraud – High Court dismissed the same on the ground that parties not given liberty to restore the appeal while recording compromise – Correctness: Held: Explanation to Ord.23 r.3 clearly states that void and voidable agreements under the Contract Act shall not be deemed to be lawful – By alleging fraud in his recall application, the appellant is effectively impugning the legality of the compromise as proving the same would render the agreement voidable under the Contract Act – When the court disposes of a proceeding pursuant to a compromise u/Ord.23, r.3, it bears the duty to examine this issue and be satisfied that the agreement or compromise is lawful – Said issue can be agitated by way of a recall application even after the compromise decree has been passed – High Court dismissed the application solely on the ground that the order recording the compromise does not grant liberty to restore the appeal – This is not the correct approach, as it defeats the statutory right and remedy available to the appellant under the CPC – Only the court that entertains the petition of compromise can determine its legality, * Author 454 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports at the time of recording the compromise or when it is questioned by way of a recall application – No other remedy is available to the party who is aggrieved by the compromise decree as appeal or fresh suit not maintainable – High Court not correct in curtailing the statutory remedy available to the appellant – When there is a statutory remedy available to a litigant, no question of a court granting liberty to avail of such remedy – No occasion for the court to deny liberty to file for restoration and the consequent dismissal of the recall application by the impugned order on this ground alone does not arise – As a matter of public policy courts must not curtail statutorily provisioned remedial mechanisms available to parties – Compromise deed itself recognises the parties’ right to approach the court to question its validity – Order of the High Court set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for deciding application for recall. [Paras 13-17] Case Law Cited Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 524 : (1993) 1 SCC 581; Pushpa Devi v. Rajinder Singh [2006] Supp. 3 SCR 370 : (2006) 5 SCC 566 – relied on. Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 1104 : (2005) 1 SCC 787; Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers [2003] 3 SCR 762 : (2003) 6 SCC 659; R. Rajanna v. S.R. Venkataswamy [2014] 14 SCR 535 : (2014) 15 SCC 471; Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh [2020] 4 SCR 650 : (2020) 6 SCC 629; R. Janakiammal v. S.K. Kumaraswamy [2021] 6 SCR 333 : (2021) 9 SCC 114; Sree Surya Developers & Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad [2022] 3 SCR 1081 : (2022) 5 SCC 736; Basavaraj v. Indira [2024] 2 SCR 935 : (2024) 3 SCC 705 – referred to. List of Acts Contract Act, 1872; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Right of party to get the first appeal restored; Compromise decree; Compromise of suit; Void and voidable agreements; Fraud in recall application; Statutory right and remedy; Restoration; Remedial mechanisms; Compromise deed. [2024] 12 S.C.R. 455 Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma & Ors. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14328 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2023 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCMA No. 162 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv. for the Appellant. Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.