Court-recorded settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC held valid, with consent orders binding despite later withdrawal attempt.

Where parties, through counsel, reach a consensus in court and the claim is adjusted or satisfied during the proceedings, the second part of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC applies and a separate written compromise signed by the parties is not necessary. The Delhi High Court noted that the settlement was recorded after several hearings, with counsel confirming the terms on instructions, and that the orders expressly proceeded on consent. The appellants' later attempt to resile from the recorded settlement was treated as an afterthought. The compromise was held valid and lawful, and the consent orders were held binding on the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the compromise recorded by the Single Judge satisfied the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the resulting consent orders were valid and binding on the appellants.

Analysis: The record showed that the dispute before the Single Judge was settled after several hearings, with counsel appearing for the appellants and confirming the terms on instructions. The order dated 17 March 2017 expressly recorded that it was passed solely on the basis of consent of the parties, and the subsequent order of 26 April 2017 noted that the settlement had been thrashed out after much discussion and at the instance of the petitioners. The Court held that where parties, through counsel, arrive at a consensus in court and the claim is adjusted or satisfied during the proceedings, the second part of Order XXIII Rule 3 is attracted and a written compromise signed by the parties is not necessary. The appellants' attempt to resile from the recorded settlement was found to be an afterthought and not a ground to unsettle the order.

Conclusion: The compromise was held to be valid and lawful, and the consent orders were held to be binding on the appellants.

---