An Appeal May Be Disposed of in Terms of a Compromise Under Order XXIII Rule 3.

The appellant challenged the judgment and decree dated 28 July 2025 in O.S. No. 4877 of 2004, by which the trial court allowed I.A. No. XVI and rejected the plaint.

While the appeal was pending, the appellant and respondent No. 5 appeared before the High Court and filed I.A. No. 1 of 2026 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, supported by a joint affidavit.

The affidavit stated that the appellant had agreed to relinquish his claims to the schedule property for Rs. 1,48,50,000, received by demand draft, and to withdraw the appeal.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were not present.

1. Whether the appeal could be disposed of on the basis of the joint affidavit and compromise terms filed by the appellant and respondent No. 5.

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of the court fee paid in the appeal.

The application invoked Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the procedural basis for placing the parties’ compromise before the Court and seeking disposal of the appeal in its terms.

The appeal had been brought under Section 96 CPC.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out or discuss a broader legal test for recording a compromise.

The Court recorded that the appellant and respondent No. 5 were present with counsel, had signed the joint affidavit, and sought disposal of the appeal in accordance with their settlement.

The affidavit set out the consideration paid to the appellant and his agreement to relinquish his claim and withdraw the appeal.

On that basis, the Court placed the application and affidavit on record and disposed of the appeal in their terms; it did not discuss the absence of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 or provide further analysis of the compromise’s effect on them.

It further directed the Registry to refund the appellant’s court fee.