2025 INSC 570 : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/vyek/
Supreme Court of India
Bench: Vikram Nath, *Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6681-6682 of 2023; Decided on: April 23, 2025
Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) v. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj & Ors.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXIII Rule 3, Order XLIII Rule 1-A, Section 96 – Consent Decree – Challenge to Compromise – Maintainability of First Appeal – The Supreme Court held that a party to a suit who disputes the factum or legality of a compromise embodied in a consent decree must first approach the Trial Court under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 to challenge its validity. A direct First Appeal under Section 96 is not maintainable due to the bar under Section 96(3), which prohibits appeals against consent decrees. Order XLIII Rule 1-A does not create an independent right of appeal but allows a party, already in a competent appeal, to challenge the recording of the compromise. The 1976 amendments to the CPC, deleting Order XLIII Rule 1(m) and introducing the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3, Rule 3-A, and Rule 1-A, mandate this sequential remedy. A non-party affected by a consent decree may file a First Appeal under Section 96 with leave, but a party on record is restricted to the Trial Court remedy. Allegations of fraud or lack of authority must also be raised before the Trial Court under the proviso.
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 21(2) – No appeal lies against a Lok Adalat award, though supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 remains available.
Facts: The appellant, a party to two civil suits, challenged consent decrees passed in 2016, alleging fraud and lack of notice. She filed Appeals from Orders (AOs) under Order XLIII Rule 1-A, which were dismissed by the Gujarat High Court’s Larger Bench on 28.08.2019, holding that a party must first approach the Trial Court under Order XXIII Rule 3. The Supreme Court upheld this view, affirming that the appellant, being a party, could not bypass the Trial Court remedy.
Held: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court’s judgment. The appellant was permitted to invoke the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 before the Trial Court, with no opinion expressed on the merits of such an application. No order as to costs.