https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170991 The 1976 amendment to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was read as preventing oral compromises and ensuring certainty, not as removing the traditional authority of a duly authorised pleader. In light of Order III Rule 1, the expression "signed by the parties" was held to include signature by counsel or a recognised agent acting for the party. A compromise decree signed through authorised counsel was therefore valid. Where the decree remained unchallenged and no fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, or lack of authority was shown, it operated as res judicata and could not be impeached in execution. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2015 11:17:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170991 The 1976 amendment to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was read as preventing oral compromises and ensuring certainty, not as removing the traditional authority of a duly authorised pleader. In light of Order III Rule 1, the expression "signed by the parties" was held to include signature by counsel or a recognised agent acting for the party. A compromise decree signed through authorised counsel was therefore valid. Where the decree remained unchallenged and no fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, or lack of authority was shown, it operated as res judicata and could not be impeached in execution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170991