A trial court may recall a compromise order when stipulated consideration remains unpaid.

The plaintiff brought O.S. No. 51/2014 claiming a 1/10th share in the suit properties.

On 28 November 2017, the parties filed a compromise petition, under which the defendants were to pay her ₹10,00,000, stated to have been tendered by cheque, in return for her relinquishing her claims.

On 4 July 2022, the plaintiff applied under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act to recall the compromise order, alleging that she had not received the money.

The trial court allowed the applications and restored the suit on 6 July 2022.

The defendants challenged that order in these revision petitions.

At the ensuing enquiry, the defendants’ assertion that they had paid the amount in cash after taking back the cheque was not substantiated

1. Whether the trial court was justified in entertaining the plaintiff’s application to recall the order recording the compromise, on the ground that the agreed payment had not been made

2. Whether the trial court’s order allowing the applications and restoring the suit disclosed a material irregularity warranting interference in revision

Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was the procedural basis for the plaintiff’s application to recall the order recording the compromise; Section 5 of the Limitation Act was invoked in seeking condonation of delay; and Section 115 CPC governed the defendants’ revision petitions.

The High Court noted that the trial court had relied on 2015 (5) KCCR 631 (DB) in entertaining the recall applications and 2010 (2) Civil LJ 356 in condoning the delay; the judgment does not state the names of those cases or elaborate their governing propositions

The compromise included payment of ₹10,00,000 as consideration for the plaintiff giving up her claims.

She alleged that the payment was never received, while the defendants asserted that they had paid in cash after recovering the cheque.

After holding an enquiry, the trial court found that the defendants had failed to substantiate their account.

In those circumstances, the High Court held that the trial court was justified in entertaining the applications and recalling the compromise order, and found no material irregularity warranting revisionary interference

The defendants were permitted to withdraw the ₹10,00,000 deposited pursuant to the High Court’s interim order, together with accrued interest, except ₹10,000, which was directed to be paid to the plaintiff as compensatory costs