Appeal against a consent decree is not maintainable

Court :
In The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
Brief :
Two important issues involved in this case are (i) whether the appeal against the consent decree is maintainable? And (ii) whether the compromise statement of the appellant’s counsel and respondent’s counsel recorded by the court is a valid compromise in terms of Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure? The apex court while answering the first issue negatively, has observed that the validity of a consent decree depends wholly on the validity of the agreement or compromise on which it is made and no appeal is maintainable against a consent decree having regard to the specific bar contained in section 96 (3) CPC. The only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree is to approach the court, under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23, which recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish that there was no compromise. The court answered the second issue affirmatively and observed that: the words ‘by parties’ occurred in Order XXIII, Rule 3 refer not only to parties in person, but their attorney holders or duly authorized pleaders. And, therefore, the statement of the counsels of both the parties recorded by the court is a valid compromise in terms of Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Citation :
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. LR. Smt. Sudhna Rai v. Rajinder Singh & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 2869 of 2006 arising out of SLP (C) No. 13894/2004 decided on July 11, 2006

---