Union Of India & Ors. vs Ravi Kumar

Court
Delhi High Court

$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010506112026
+ W.P.(C) 15524/2026, CM APPL. 72883/2026 & CM APPL.
72884/2026

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, CGSC
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, Adv.

versus

RAVI KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 16.10.2026

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails order dated 25 March 2026 passed by
1
the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 4926/2025.

2. Para 10 of the impugned order reads thus:

“10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in
the given facts and circumstances, interference of the Tribunal in
the orders impugned are not warranted. Further, he fairly submits
that the issue involved in the present OA is identical to that in OA
No. 2001/2022 (Supra) decided vide common order/judgment
dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure A-9) and which has been upheld by
the Hon'ble High Court and further by the Hon'ble Apex Court.”

1
“Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:40:11
W.P.(C) 15524/2026 Page 1 of 4

3. The order is thus one passed on consent. The Tribunal has
merely granted the same reliefs as were granted in OA 2001/2022.

4. The Supreme Court has held, in Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi
2
v. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi , that an order passed on consent
cannot be made subject matter to challenge. The relevant paragraphs,
in this context, may be reproduced thus:

“10. Let us discuss the law governing a consent decree. Order 23
Rule 3 of CPC, which deals with compromise decree, reads as
follows:

“3. Compromise of suit.— Where it is proved to the
satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted
wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise,
in writing and signed by the parties or where the defendant
satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of
the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such
agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and
shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it
relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-
matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the
same as the subject-matter of the suit:

Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by
the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived
at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment
shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question,
unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to
grant such adjournment.

Explanation.—An agreement or compromise which is void
or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of
1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning
of this rule”

Thus, a reading of the above provision makes it clear that before
passing a decree on the basis of a compromise, the Court has to
satisfy itself that the suit has been adjusted by a lawful

2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 835
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:40:11
W.P.(C) 15524/2026 Page 2 of 4

compromise. Once the Court passes a compromise decree after
such a satisfaction, the decree cannot be challenged in an appeal as
no appeal lies against a compromise decree.

*

12. The only remedy against a compromise decree is to file a
recall application. This Court in Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder
3
Singh , summed up the position of law as follows:

“17. The position that emerges from the amended
provisions of Order 23 can be summed up thus:

(i) No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree
having regard to the specific bar contained in Section 96(3)
CPC.

(ii) No appeal is maintainable against the order of the
court recording the compromise (or refusing to record a
compromise) in view of the deletion of clause (m) of Rule 1
Order 43.

(iii) No independent suit can be filed for setting aside a
compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was
not lawful in view of the bar contained in Rule 3-A.

(iv) A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is
valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which
passed the consent decree, by an order on an application
under the proviso to Rule 3 Order 23.

Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a consent
decree to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the
court which recorded the compromise and made a decree in
terms of it, and establish that there was no compromise. In
that event, the court which recorded the compromise will
itself consider and decide the question as to whether there
was a valid compromise or not. This is so because a consent
decree is nothing but contract between parties
superimposed with the seal of approval of the court. The
validity of a consent decree depends wholly on the validity
of the agreement or compromise on which it is made…”


5. We, therefore, find no cause to interfere with the present writ

3
(2006) 5 SCC 566
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:40:11
W.P.(C) 15524/2026 Page 3 of 4

petition which is dismissed in limine .


C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 16, 2026/ AR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:28.10.2026
17:40:11
W.P.(C) 15524/2026 Page 4 of 4