Non-party to compromise decree is not barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A from challenging it.

The Review Applicant (Appellant), Govinder Singh, sought a review of the judgment dated 19.12.2025, which affirmed a 2018 decree declaring that each of the four children of late Sardar Swaroop Singh and Sardarni Raminder Kaur held a 1/4th share in the property at 3, Sardar Patel Marg

The dispute originated from a 1987 "Protocol-cum-Agreement" signed by the family members to divide the property equally

However, the Appellant later obtained a consent decree in 1993 based on a separate "Memorandum of Oral Family Settlement" with his mother, effectively excluding his siblings

The siblings (Respondents) successfully challenged this by filing CS(OS) 973/1994

The Appellant sought review on grounds that the court ignored the 1993 consent decree’s finality, mismanaged the effect of a dismissed interlocutory application (I.A. No. 6903/1996), and misinterpreted the 1987 Protocol regarding a payment of Rs. 4,00,000

1. Whether the statutory bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC applies to third parties who were not signatories to a compromise decree

2. Whether the dismissal of a previous application (I.A. No. 6903/1996) filed by the mother to recall a compromise decree constitutes res judicata or a bar against the independent claims of the siblings

3. Whether the payment of Rs. 4,00,000 specified in the 1987 Protocol was a condition precedent to the enforceability of the property division

The court applied Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which prohibits a suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful, but clarified this bar applies only to parties to the original compromise

It utilized the principle of "Family Settlement/Arrangement," emphasizing that such pacts are intended to maintain peace and should be enforced based on the collective intention of the parties

Furthermore, it applied the restricted scope of "Review Jurisdiction" under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which permits intervention only for errors apparent on the face of the record and prohibits a rehearing on merits

The court reasoned that the 1993 consent decree could not bind the Respondents because they were neither impleaded nor signatories to those proceedings; thus, Order XXIII Rule 3A did not bar their independent suit for declaration

Regarding the procedural history, the court found that the dismissal of the mother’s application (I.A. No. 6903/1996) did not extinguish the Respondents' rights, as their claims were independently founded on the 1987 Protocol and 1988 Memorandum, to which the Appellant was a party or signatory

The court scrutinized the 1987 Protocol and concluded that the division of property was an absolute declaration of intent, whereas the Rs. 4,00,000 payment related to HUF accounts and was not a "condition precedent" for the property’s partition

Finally, the court noted that the Appellant was attempting to re-argue the appeal's merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction

It corrected a typographical error in the 2025 judgment to clarify that the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC applies only between parties to the compromise

The court affirmed that the 1987 Protocol and 1988 Memorandum validly established the Respondents' 1/4th shares each, and the previous consent decree obtained by the Appellant did not supersede these family arrangements

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly