CASE NAME: NAVRATAN LAL SHARMA vs RADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS.
CASE NO.: Civil Appeal No. 14328 of 2024
DATED: December 12, 2024
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, Navaratan Sharma, brought an action against Defendant No. 1 for having forged the power of attorney documents dated 19.07.2010 and 27.07.2010 and the said documents were used to execute in favor of Defendant No. 2, the sale deeds for the suit property, on 31.08.2010 and 15.09.2010. Accordingly, the petitioner sought the court to cancel the said documents and for that sought the help of injunction orders, one of which was permanent and another was mandatory.
The Trial Court turned down the suit on 17.02.2014. Being displeased with this, the appellant initiated the original appeal before the Rajasthan High Court. During the pendency of the said appeal the appellant and Respondent No. 2 executed a compromise deed on 18.05.2022, which was accompanied by corrigendum dated 08.07.2022.
There were certain specifications in the compromise with respect to monetary aspects as to payments to the Petitioner and the further right of the Petitioner to file an application was also provided in the same. But when the cheques of Namokar found insufficient, the appellant, in return, filed an application for the restoration of the appeal.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether the appellant had the right to restore the appeal on the basis of the dishonoring of the compromise terms?
- Whether the appellant could contest the compromise deed’s legality, and by throwing in the allegations of fraud and non-compliance?
LEGAL PROVISION
- Order 23 rule 3 CPC: This rule allows parties to settle disputes amicably and avoid prolonged litigation. For a compromise to be valid, it must be in writing, signed by the parties, and lawful.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPEALLANT/ RESPONDENT
NO CONTENTIONS WERE GIVEN IN THE JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court, through a judgment allowed the appeal. It was the Court’s view that in no case the statutory right of the petitioner to seek restoration of the decree under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can be infringed upon.
The judgment made categorically clear that:
- The appellant’s right to restoration of the appeal as a statutory remedy under the CPC was realized.
- The High Court’s aforementioned order as of 14.07.2022 which previously, with an explicit grant of freedom, had no effect on the appellant submitting the application]
- The agreement itself acknowledged the appellant’s right to restore the appeal under the condition of non-compliance] would restore the appeal in case of non-compliance by inventory itself under the 1984 Act.]
- The issue departed to the High Court to decide the pleadings for reconstitution based on the merits of the application.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court has correctly held that the High Court, while rejecting the restoration application, erred because public policy calls for the non-curtailment of legal remedies. It is thus that by permitting the appeal and remitting the case, the Supreme Court has ensured that the provisions of the statute as also public policy are respected. This is a landmark judgment affirming the principle that statutory rights can neither be waived nor be barred in the absence of valid grounds. It provides parties in disputes with a legal right to litigate, especially when there are breached terms of agreement.
CONCLUSION
This ruling is a very firm and clear recognition of the fact that legal remedies could not be waived or limited for reasons other than legal ones. It guarantees that in cases of fraudulent activities or non-compliance with the agreement, the parties involved in a lawsuit have the right to ask the court to impose their rights upon the other party.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: SHAKCHI VERMA
