A writ petition challenging a compromise decree is not maintainable where an Order XXIII Rule 3A remedy is available.

Respondent No. 1 filed O.S. No. 102/2016 claiming ownership and possession of 3 acres 1 gunta in Sy. No. 90/6 (old Sy. No. 90/1).

The parties filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, which the Trial Court accepted and on which it drew a compromise decree.

The petitioner later challenged the compromise order and decree, contending that the Government had acquired the 3 acres 1 gunta and that the Government was not a party to the suit. Respondents 2 and 3 supported the petitioner’s challenge.

The High Court noted that the parties had appeared through counsel and that the Trial Court had recorded that the compromise petition was read over and explained to them, and that they admitted its contents.

Whether the petitioner could challenge the compromise order and decree by a writ petition under Article 227, rather than by pursuing the remedy identified by the Court under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable in the circumstances, given that the compromise decree had been passed by the Civil Court and not by a Lok Adalat.

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC concerns the recording of a lawful compromise by the court and the passing of a decree in accordance with it.

The Court treated Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC as providing the petitioner with an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the compromise decree, and held that the petitioner should pursue the appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum rather than invoke writ jurisdiction.

The Court distinguished the case from one involving a Lok Adalat award, observing that the impugned decree was a Civil Court decree, not a Lok Adalat award.

Although the petitioner alleged that the suit property had been acquired by the Government and that the compromise was therefore erroneous, the High Court did not determine those merits.

It relied on the Trial Court record showing that the parties had appeared, acknowledged the compromise petition’s contents, and obtained a decree on that basis.

The Court concluded that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC and had not shown a basis to pursue the challenge by writ petition. It also found the Lok Adalat distinction inapplicable because the decree was passed by the Trial Court.

while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority and initiate appropriate proceedings.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.