Tagged “order-23-rule-3”

Krishna Kumar Ojha v. Jitendra Chaudhary (2026): a compromise decree needs the party's signature, not just counsel's

The Supreme Court affirmed the setting aside of a 1994 compromise decree in a partition suit, holding that Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC requires a written agreement signed by the parties, that an advocate's implied authority does not extend to signing away a client's substantive property rights without express authorisation or exigency, and that a roughly 25-year delay could be excused where a fraudulent compromise decree defeated substantive rights.