Bar to suit
Full Text
No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.
Plain English Summary
Bars independent civil suits to challenge or set aside a compromise decree on grounds of fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or illegality, confining the aggrieved party's remedy strictly to an application before the very court that passed the compromise decree.
Key Legal Elements
- Total Prohibition on Fresh Lawsuits: Absolute bar on filing separate declaratory/cancellation suits.
- Fraud and Coercion Included: Applies even where compromise is challenged on grounds of fraud, forgery, or undue influence.
- Exclusive Remedy: Application under Section 151 read with Proviso to Rule 3 before the same court that recorded the compromise.
- Section 96(3) Bar Harmonized: Since consent decrees cannot be appealed under Section 96(3), the recall application is the sole gateway.
Practical Note
Challenging a Fraudulent Compromise Decree: 1. Landmark Authorities - Horil v. Keshav (2012) 5 SCC 525, Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh (2020) 6 SCC 629 & R. Rajanna v. S.R. Venkataswamy (2014) 15 SCC 470: The Supreme Court held that Order XXIII Rule 3A puts an absolute bar on filing a fresh suit to set aside a compromise decree, even on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation. An independent suit filed for this purpose MUST be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. 2. The Correct Procedural Remedy: The ONLY lawful remedy available to an aggrieved party is to file a Recall/Review Application under Section 151 read with the Proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in the *very same court* that recorded the compromise decree!
हिंदी पाठ
किसी डिक्री को इस आधार पर अपास्त कराने के लिए कोई पृथक वाद नहीं लाया जाएगा (No suit shall lie) कि वह समझौता जिस पर डिक्री आधारित है, विधिपूर्ण नहीं था।