Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1364 - SC - Indian LawsRejection of plaint in exercise of powers Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure - independent suit would be maintainable against the Compromise Decree, or not - Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT:- On plain reading of Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint. 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 VERSUS S.K. KUMARASAMY (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS AND S.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ANOTHER VERSUS S.K. KUMARASAMY (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS [2021 (6) TMI 1140 - SUPREME COURT]. 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 consider in detail Order XXIII Rule 3 as well as Rule 3A. The Trial Court was absolutely justified in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit for the reliefs sought challenging the Compromise Decree would not be maintainable. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions right from 1977 that a mere clever drafting would not permit the Plaintiff to make the suit maintainable which otherwise would not be maintainable and/or barred by law. It has been consistently held by this Court that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage. It is not in dispute that as such the Respondent No. 1-original Plaintiff has already moved an appropriate application before the concerned Court, which passed the decree setting aside the compromise Decree by submitting an application Under Order XXIII Rule 3A Code of Civil Procedure therefore the said application will have to be decided and disposed of in accordance with law in which all the defences/contentions which may have been available to the respective parties on the validity of the Compromise Decree would have to be gone into by the concerned court in accordance with law and on its own merits. Appeal allowed.
|