LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 20 December 2024

Does the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC apply to a stranger to the compromise decree?

SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS v. SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14807 OF 2024 · 2024 INSC 1025 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14807 OF 2024
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Or.VII r.11(d) Code of Civil Pro…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Yes. A plaintiff who is admittedly a stranger to the suits which ended in compromise cannot, in view of the direct bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC, seek a declaration that the compromise decrees are void ab initio, null and void and liable to be set aside. The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC is applicable to third parties as well and the only remedy available to them would be to approach the same court.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.VII r.11(d) — Or.XXIII r.3A — Limitation Act, 1963 — Art.59 — Art.65 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.3 — Rejection of plaint — Constructive notice — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.VII r.11(d) — Plaint hopelessly barred by limitation — Held: Though limitation is generally a mixed question of law and facts, a plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) where a meaningful reading, after dissecting the vices of clever drafting creating an illusion of cause of action, shows the suit hopelessly barred. (¶18, 26) Limitation Act, 1963 — Art.59 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.3 — Limitation runs from registration — Held further: Registration operates as constructive notice and attracts the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Limitation for setting aside a registered sale deed runs from the date of registration and expires three years thereafter. (¶16, 20) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or.XXIII r.3A — Bar binds a stranger to the compromise — Held further: The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A is applicable to third parties as well, so a stranger to the compromise cannot seek a declaration that the compromise decrees are void; the only remedy is to approach the same court. Appeal allowed; plaint rejected. (¶25, 27)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 25Regarding the averments made in the plaint relating to fraud played on the plaintiff by the defendants in relation to the compromise decrees obtained in their favour, we are of the view that they are vague and general, besides baseless and unsubstantiated. Rather, no case can be culled out from the averments made in the plaint in this regard. The plea of fraud is intrinsically connected with the nature of Inam. We have already discussed the plea of fraud in the preceding paragraphs. We are also of the view that the plea has been raised only to overcome the period of limitation. Admittedly the Plaintiff is a stranger to the suits which ended in compromise. Therefore, in view of the direct bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC, he cannot seek a declaration ‘that the compromise decrees passed in Spl. Civil Suit Nos.l52/1951 and 1622/1988 and Civil Appeal No.787/2001, Pune are void ab initio, null and void and the same are liable to be set aside’. The law on this point is also already settled by this Court in Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh[^28]. The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC is applicable to third parties as well and the only remedy available to them would be to approach the same court. In the present case, such an exercise is also not possible in view of the bar of limitation. Hence, we find the suit to be unsustainable.
Acts & Sections
Or.VII r.11(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Or.XXIII r.3A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Art. 59 Limitation Act, 1963Art. 65 Limitation Act, 1963s.3 Transfer of Property Act, 1882s.31 Specific Relief Act, 1963

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS v. SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC when limitation is a mixed question?When does limitation begin for cancelling a registered sale deed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections