Bombay High Court Allows Compromise Between Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.8-11 in Property Suit — Consent Terms Accepted Despite Objections from Other Defendants. Partial Settlement Under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC Does Not Affect Rights of Non-Settling Defendants Who May Continue to Contest the Suit.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 89
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The suit was filed by 35 plaintiffs seeking a declaration that they are purchasers of certain property. The matter was listed for settlement as the plaintiffs and defendant nos.8 to 11 submitted consent terms. Defendant nos.1 to 3 and 4 to 6 objected, arguing that the compromise was impermissible behind their back and affected their rights in the land. The court analyzed Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and held that a compromise between some parties is permissible if it does not affect the rights of non-settling defendants. The court found that the consent terms only resolved disputes between the plaintiffs and defendant nos.8 to 11, and did not prejudice the objecting defendants' rights to contest the suit. The court accepted the consent terms and disposed of the suit as against defendant nos.8 to 11, while allowing the suit to continue against the remaining defendants.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Compromise of Suit - Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC - Partial Settlement - The Court examined whether consent terms between Plaintiffs and some defendants can be accepted when other defendants object. Held that the compromise does not affect the rights of non-settling defendants as it only settles disputes between the settling parties and does not preclude other defendants from contesting the suit. (Paras 1-27)

B) Property Law - Rights of Co-Owners - Consent Terms - The Court considered the objection that the compromise affects the objecting defendants' rights in the land. Held that the consent terms do not create any new rights or obligations for the objecting defendants and they are free to pursue their own claims. (Paras 15-27)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Court can accept consent terms between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.8 to 11 when Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 4 to 6 object on grounds that the compromise affects their rights and is impermissible behind their back.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court accepted the consent terms between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.8 to 11 and disposed of the suit as against Defendant Nos.8 to 11. The suit continues against the remaining defendants.

Law Points

  • Compromise of suit
  • consent terms
  • Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC
  • rights of non-settling defendants
  • partial settlement
  • maintainability of suit
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 196

SUIT NO.134 OF 2009

2024-02-22

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

2024:BHC-OS:2841

Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shanay Shah, Mr. Kiran Jain, Mr. Ayush Chugh, Ms. Neha Raut i/b M/s. Kiran Jain & Co. for Plaintiffs; Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Kunal Bhanage for Defendant Nos.8 to 11; Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Girish Paryani, Mr. Shavez Mukri i/b M/s. A & G Legal Associates LLP for Defendant Nos.1 to 3; Mr. H.V. Kumarswamy Iyer for Defendant Nos.4 to 6; Mr. Deepak Shukla for Defendant No.15/Union of India; Mr. S.K. Dhekale, Court Receiver with Mrs. S.S. Chipkar, Master (Adm.), Office of the Court Receiver

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit seeking declaration of purchase of property.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs sought declaration that they are purchasers of the property.

Filing Reason

Dispute over property rights.

Issues

Whether consent terms between Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.8 to 11 can be accepted despite objections from other defendants. Whether the compromise affects the rights of non-settling defendants.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.8 to 11 submitted consent terms for compromise. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 4 to 6 objected that compromise is impermissible behind their back and affects their rights in the land.

Ratio Decidendi

A compromise between some parties to a suit is permissible under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC if it does not affect the rights of non-settling defendants. The consent terms here only settle disputes between the settling parties and do not prejudice the objecting defendants' rights to contest the suit.

Judgment Excerpts

The Suit was listed for settlement on account of submission made on Plaintiffs’ behalf that the disputes are amicably resolved. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have opposed compromise of the Suit by Plaintiffs with Defendant Nos.8 to 11 on the grounds, both of impermissibility to settle the Suit behind their back and also on the ground of terms of compromise affecting their rights in respect of land.

Procedural History

Suit filed in 2009. Listed for settlement in 2024. Consent terms submitted. Objections raised by Defendant Nos.1-3 and 4-6. Court passed order on 22 February 2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XXIII Rule 3
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal and Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO and SC/ST Act Case on Grounds of Completed Investigation and Custody Period. Court Holds That Filing of Charge-Sheet and No Apprehension of Tampering Justifies Bail Under Section 14-...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Limitation Act Acknowledgment Case. Letter by Secretary-Cum-Chief Accountant Acknowledging Balance Due Constituted Acknowledgment Under Section 19(1) of Limitation Act, 1908, and Binding on Corporation Due to Implied A...