In Brief
A property owner challenged a compromise decree by filing a new suit seeking various reliefs including declaration of title and possession. The Trial Court rejected the plaint as unmaintainable under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, which bars suits to set aside a compromise decree. The High Court reversed this, considering the merits of the compromise's validity. The Supreme Court held that no independent suit lies to challenge a compromise decree; the only remedy is an application before the court that passed the decree. The plaintiff's clever drafting of multiple reliefs to circumvent this statutory bar was rejected, and the Trial Court's dismissal was restored, without prejudice to the pending application before the original court.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.