-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
“A consent decree is nothing but a contract between parties, superimposed with the seal of approval of the court… the only remedy lies before the same court that passed it”, - In a judgment reaffirming the sanctity of consent decrees and the procedural discipline of civil law, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal challenging a two-decade-old compromise decree, holding that such a decree cannot be nullified by filing a new suit.
The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah ruled that filing a fresh civil suit to question the validity of a compromise decree is barred under Order 23 Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Code, and reiterated that the only permissible remedy is to approach the same court which passed the decree through a recall application.
Court Declines Partition Claim Based on Alleged Fraud: “Appellants Had Already Benefited from the Decree”
The dispute arose from a family partition originally conducted in 1974, followed by a compromise decree in 2000 over 7 acres of land allegedly left out. The appellants, sons of one of the parties to the compromise, claimed that their father had been coerced into agreeing to the terms and sought to declare the compromise decree void in a separate suit filed in 2003.
However, the Supreme Court found no merit in the challenge and stated:
“Even if we accept the contention of the appellants that their father was coerced… a fresh suit is still not a valid remedy. In that situation, the appellants’ father should have filed a recall application before the Court that had passed the decree.”
The Court observed that the appellants themselves had obtained a partition of their father's share in a 2002 decree (based on the same compromise), receiving half of his allotted portion. Calling out the contradiction, the Court remarked:
“We are unable to understand how the appellants can claim it to be an act of fraud, having already benefited from the decree through a partition of their father's share.”
The Law Is Clear: Compromise Decrees Are Final Unless Recalled by the Same Court
Quoting extensively from Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh (2006) 5 SCC 566, the Supreme Court restated the legal position:
“A consent decree is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which passed it, by an order on an application under the proviso to Rule 3 Order 23. No independent suit can be filed for setting it aside.”
It further reiterated:
“A consent decree operates as an estoppel… the only remedy is to establish before the same court that there was no compromise.”
The bench categorically rejected the appellants’ argument that their rights as coparceners had been illegally affected by the compromise, clarifying that their father’s interest was legally represented and the compromise was binding. Moreover, even if the suit property was not ancestral (as claimed), the property would legally belong to their father, who had raised no grievance:
“If the father of the appellants has no grievance against the consent decree, then we are unable to understand how the appellants can be allowed to challenge it.”
Conclusion: No Fresh Round of Litigation Allowed — Appeal Dismissed
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, ruling that the suit was barred by Order 23 Rule 3A, Order 2 Rule 2, and res judicata.
“The appellants’ suit is bereft of any merits… it cannot be permitted under the bar imposed by law on challenging consent decrees through independent suits.”
In closing, the bench decisively stated:
“We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the High Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.”
With this verdict, the Supreme Court reemphasized that consent decrees are contracts endorsed by judicial sanction, and once passed, they cannot be reopened or re-litigated through collateral civil suits. The sanctity of settlements must be respected, and procedural law cannot be bypassed in the name of equity.
Date of Decision: April 21, 2025
