Even if a third party cannot file a separate litigation to challenge the compromise decree, SC. It was decided that the Court should never be a party to imposing a compromise on an unwilling party, and it is still open to being questioned on an application before the Court under the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC. If an application for amendment, modification or revocation of a decree in respect of property belongs to a party who did not join in the original proceeding or who is not bound by it, then such application may be filed only with the previous authority of the court which passed the decree.
For example, if A and B are brothers and A wants to file an application with the court to modify a decree of inheritance granted to B on the ground that he has evidence that B has got married and has children, then A can do so only with the permission of the court which passed the original decree. Even though B is not a party to the original proceeding, he is affected by it because the decree grants him rights over certain properties. So, unless B joins A in the application, the court will deny it.
Another example would be where there is a dispute between two parties A and B about the ownership of some property, and A files an application with the court seeking approval from the court to sell the property. However, B objects to the sale and files a counter-application objecting to the sale.
Even if a third party is barred from filing a separate litigation to challenge the settlement order, SC. On May 6, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear Triloki Nath Singh v. The question in this appeal before the Supreme Court was whether the compromise decree might be contested in a separate litigation by the stranger to the proceedings. The answer was yes, it could be done.
During the pendency of the possession litigation, the parties reached an agreement and filed a compromise application under the requirements of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. Thus, the agreement was binding on the parties and could not be repudiated by either party.
Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C., which is a special provision for putting aside a compromise decree, can be used to set aside a compromise decree or an award... A person seeking to set aside a compromise agreement or award has the burden of showing that he was deprived of a fair hearing.
THE RIGHT OF A PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW FROM A SUIT The regulations governing a plaintiff's withdrawal of an action are governed by Order 23 of the CPC. A plaintiff may quit his suit or portion of his claim at any moment after the establishment of an action, according to Order 23, Rule 1(1) of the CPC. He may even dismiss his case without order if it appears that he is unable to proceed with it due to some cause beyond his control. However, if he has served the defendant with answers or written objections, or taken any other step in the action which is unaffected by this rule, he cannot withdraw from the case until these steps have been taken.
If a plaintiff desires to drop part of his claim before taking any steps in the action affecting the rights of the defendant, he must file a notice of dismissal as for failure to prosecute pursuant to section 32 of the CPR. If he fails to do so, the court will regard the action as pending against him on the remaining part of the claim and he cannot later withdraw from it except as provided in Order 23, paragraph 2.
A defendant has the right to demand trial within a reasonable time after being served with process. If he does not do so, he waives his right to trial by jury. This waiver can be withdrawn only with the consent of the court, which cannot be given unless it is shown that the defendant was not negligent in failing to appear.