Unauthorised compromise decree can be challenged by appeal, and inherent corrective power survives expiry of appeal limitation.

An unauthorised compromise decree may be challenged because apparent consent does not bind a party unless the compromise was lawfully authorised on that party's behalf. The decree is therefore open to appeal where authority to compromise is disputed. The court's inherent power to correct its record is also available after the limitation period for appeal or review has expired, including where the decree is alleged to be void or unauthorised. Expiry of limitation does not by itself extinguish the court's power to consider amendment or correction of the judgment and decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a party could appeal against a decree passed on the basis of a compromise said to be on his behalf when the person recording or admitting the compromise had no authority to bind him. (ii) Whether, after expiry of the limitation period for appeal or review and after the decree had become final, the party could invoke the court's inherent power to amend the judgment and decree and remove his name from the decree under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether a party could appeal against a decree passed on the basis of a compromise said to be on his behalf when the person recording or admitting the compromise had no authority to bind him.

Analysis: A decree that is described as a compromise decree may still be challenged if the compromise was not authorised by the party sought to be bound. The existence of consent on the face of the decree does not necessarily preclude scrutiny where the authority to compromise is disputed. The validity of such a decree depends on whether the party was in fact bound by a lawful compromise.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative. An appeal was open to the party.

Issue (ii): Whether, after expiry of the limitation period for appeal or review and after the decree had become final, the party could invoke the court's inherent power to amend the judgment and decree and remove his name from the decree under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The court's inherent power to correct its own proceedings is not defeated merely because an appeal was available or because the period for appeal or review has expired. Where a decree is alleged to be void as against a party because no authorised compromise existed, the court may entertain an application to correct the record. Limitation may bear on the merits of relief, but it does not destroy the power to consider the application.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative. The party could invoke the inherent power of the court.

Final Conclusion: The reference established that an unauthorised compromise decree is amenable to challenge both by appeal and by recourse to the court's inherent corrective jurisdiction, and that expiry of appeal or review limitation does not by itself bar consideration of such relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A compromise decree entered without authority to bind a party may be challenged, and the court retains inherent power to correct a decree that is void or unauthorised notwithstanding the expiry of limitation for appeal or review.

---