TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted to the Respondent No. 1 herein - original Plaintiff during his minority by his paternal grandmother (Respondent No. 2 herein and original Defendant in O.S. No. 537 of 2018) vide registered Gift Deed dated 13.02.2003. That the said Gift Settlement Deed was revoked vide Revocation of Gift Deed dated 10.12.2004 by the grandmother of the Respondent No. 1 herein - original Plaintiff. That thereafter a registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 18.01.2008 came to be executed between the grandmother of the Plaintiff and the Appellant herein - M/s. Sree Surya Developers and Promoters-original Defendant No. 2. It appears that under the said Development Agreement, the grandmother was entitled to 35,000 sq. ft. of fixed saleable super built-up area along with proportionate number of car parking spaces and undivided share in the land. 2.2 The father of the Respondent No. 1-original Plaintiff (original Respondent No. 3 herein and Defendant No. 3 in O.S. No. 537 of 2018) filed a suit being O.S. No. 1750 of 2015 as the next friend of then minor Respondent No. 1 herein seeking for declaration that revocation of Gift Deed dated 10.04.2004 as being illegal and not bin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he suit for setting aside the consent decree/Compromise Decree would be barred Under Order XXIII Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court vide order dated 02.05.2019 allowed the said I.A. and rejected the plaint on the ground that in view of Order XIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure, no independent suit would be maintainable against the Compromise Decree. 2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers Under Order VII Rule 11(d) Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that in view of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure, no independent suit would be maintainable against the Compromise Decree, the original Plaintiff preferred the present appeal before the High Court. 2.7 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint and has remanded the matter to the Trial Court by observing that the effect of the provisions of Order XXXII Rules 1 to 7 Code of Civil Procedure has not been considered by the Trial court, which would have a direct bearing on the validity o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Order XLIII before the first Appellate court challenging the Compromise Decree. It is submitted that therefore as such the Plaintiff has already availed the other remedies available to him. It is submitted that therefore the present suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is submitted that in any case, the substantive independent suit questioning the Compromise Decree shall not be maintainable in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure. 3.4. It is further submitted by Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant that in the present case the Respondent No. 1 herein - original Plaintiff has indulged in clever drafting seeking one relief by way of drafting multiple prayers. It is submitted that the only relief that the Plaintiff seeks is setting aside the Compromise Decree dated 13.01.2016 which he has sought by drafting multiple prayers in order to avoid the bar to suit envisaged Under Order XXIII Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure, which in other words is mere clever drafting. It is submitted that as held by this Court in a catena of decisions by mere clever drafting of the plaint, the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to mainta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mediately when Respondent No. 1 herein - original Plaintiff instituted a suit for various reliefs, which otherwise can be granted in a substantive independent suit, the High Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint. 4.2. It is vehemently submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original Plaintiff that in the present case, the reliefs prayed in the suit are not only with respect to the Compromise Decree, but other reliefs are sought for which an independent substantive suit shall be maintainable. It is submitted that as such the Plaintiff has not prayed to set aside the Compromise Decree. It is submitted that what is prayed is to declare that the Compromise Decree is not binding on him. It is submitted that therefore for the other reliefs sought, it can be said that an independent suit Under Order XXIII Rule 3A shall not be barred. 4.3. However, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents-original Plaintiff(s) is not disputing that the Plaintiff has already filed an application Under Order XXIII Rule 3A before the same Court, which passed the Compromise Decree. He is also not in a position to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew of Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, on plain reading of Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint. Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure, which has been inserted by amendment in 1976 reads as under: 3A. Bar to suit.--No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. 8. Therefore, on plain reading of Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure, no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of R. Janakiammal (supra). It is observed and held by this Court that Rule 3A of Order XXIII bars the suit to set aside the decree on the ground that the compromise on which decree was passed was not lawful. It is further observed and held that an agreement or compromise which is clearly void or voidable shall not be deemed to be lawful and the bar Under Rule 3A shall be attracted if compromise on the basis of which the decree was passed was void or voidable. In this case, this Court had occasion to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agreement or a compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties, a proviso with an Explanation was also added which is as follows: Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment. Explanation.--An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this Rule. 7. By adding the proviso along with an Explanation the purpose and the object of the amending Act appears to be to compel the party challenging the compromise to question the same before the court which had recorded the compromise in question. That court was enjoined to decide the controversy whether the parties have arrived at an adjustment in a lawful manner. The Explanation made it clear that an agreement or a compromise which is void or voidable under the Contract Act shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of the said Rule. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Defendants challenged the consent decree. For reasons best known to herself, the second Defendant within a few days thereafter (that is on 27-8-2001) filed an appeal and chose not to pursue the application filed before the court which passed the consent decree. Such an appeal by the second Defendant was not maintainable, having regard to the express bar contained in Section 96(3) of the Code. 55. The next judgment is R. Rajanna v. S.R. Venkataswamy, (2014) 15 SCC 471 in which the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 and Rule 3-A were again considered. After extracting the aforesaid provisions, the following was held by this Court in para 11: (SCC p. 474) 11. It is manifest from a plain reading of the above that in terms of the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 where one party alleges and the other denies adjustment or satisfaction of any suit by a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, the Court before whom such question is raised, shall decide the same. What is important is that in terms of Explanation to Order 23 Rule 3, the agreement or compromise shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of the said Rule if the same is void or voidable under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 629, this Court again referring to earlier judgments reiterated the same proposition i.e. the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and separate suit is not maintainable. In paras 17 and 18, the following has been laid down: (SCC p. 638) 17. By introducing the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 w.e.f. 1-2-1977, the legislature has brought into force Order 23 Rule 3-A, which creates bar to institute the suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which decree is based was not lawful. The purpose of effecting a compromise between the parties is to put an end to the various disputes pending before the court of competent jurisdiction once and for all. 18. Finality of decisions is an underlying principle of all adjudicating forums. Thus, creation of further litigation should never be the basis of a compromise between the parties. Rule 3-A Order 23 Code of Civil Procedure put a specific bar 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. The scheme of Order 23 Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful--not formal--reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power Under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly Under Order 10 Code of Civil Procedure. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. 10.3. In the case of Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364, this Court has observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation. 11. If we consider the reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession, cancellation of revocation of Gift Deed, declaration for DGPA and Deed of Assignment-cum-DGPA, the said reliefs can be grante....