Case laws on consent decree

1] c. p. c order 23 rule 3- compermise-recoding, under-object of –I is to ensure that dispute reaches its finality and does not lead to further litigation-parties settling terms of compromise for reference of matter to third part who would, as agreed, dispose of cetain property and after adjusting outstanding and deducting expenses, the balance was to be given in equal share to perties- compromise being contingent contract dependent upon action of third party- Refusal by court to record it, as such- justified-no interference called for.
Juswantraj Punamiya & others v/s M/S H. Choski & co.pt.Ltd.
Civil appeal no. 702/1997, decided on 03/02/1997. [S.C.]
Supreme Appeals Reporter 1997 [s. c.] 280.
2] c. p. c order 23 rule 3-and section 144 of c. p.c. And Land

Acquisition Act ss 18 and 54--- 
compromise decree passed by High court in first appeal in terms of settlement between parties in “Lok Adalat”—state precluded from maintaining any application for relief which travels beyond compromise decree on principles of estoppel and res judicata- Claim for interest not provided for under the terms of the compromise not tenable in proceedings under section 144 of c. p. c.
State of Goa v/s Placido Bragaza.
Maharashtra Law Journal 2002[1] 370,
3] c. p. c order 23 rule 3- 
Consent decree- it is only in those cases where consent terms as whole are challenged on ground of fraud, misrepresentation or similar grounds that court can decide—a party cannot seek modification of clause in consent terms and consequently that part of the decree on the ground that same was not intended or agreed by parties.
Latabai Narcinha Telang v/s Suresh Narcinha Telang and others.
w.p. no. 384 /2004 decided on 06/05/2005. [Bombay High court /Punji –Goa Bench]
Maharashtra Law Journal 2006[1] 440,
4] c. p. c order 23 rule 3 and order 21 rules 10,24&35—
Cnsent decree – consent terms arrived at between appellant and respondent in suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell flat in question executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent 16/09/1985- consent terms no substituted by another agreement between parties- both parties failed to comply with their mutual obligations- parties directed to give effect to the terms of consent decree- Appellant is to handover the flat to respondent and respondent to transfer the land in his possession as per order set out.
Rangath Haridas v/s Dr. Shrikant Hegade.
Civil Appeal No. 3596/2006. decided on 22/08/2006. [S.C.]
Maharashtra Law Journal 2006[1] 708,
5] c. p. c order 23 rule 3 and transfer of property Act, section 53 A- Undertaking given by party for specific purpose consent order-Eviction decree-Cross-suit filed by tenant for specific performance of alleged contract of sale-Landlord giving undertaking for specific purpose to effect that the decree shall not be executed till the judgment of the lis relating to the specific performance –Drcree o specific performsnce was not granted by court –Undertaking must be construed in favour of landlord-The question of eviction of tenant in execution of decree passed in the title suit had only a direct relatitioship with the right of tenant to continue to possess the tenanted premises in furtherance of their plea of partferformance of the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale- Once that right was negatived by the court, tenant coul not resist their eviction pursuant to or in furtherance of eviction decree in execution proceedings.
Rekha Mukharjee v/s Ashish Kumar Das & others.
Civil Appeal No. 9131/2003. decided on 18/11/ 2003. [s.c.]
Maharashtra Law Journal 2004[2] 838,

Print Page