It should be noted that the amendment sought had a bearing on the operative portion of the decree inasmuch as the expression ‘mesne profits’ was to be replaced by the expression ‘net profits’. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the expression ‘mesne profits’ would have brought in a question of limitation as regards the period of accountability. Yet, the Supreme Court held that it was only an error which could be corrected under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and consequently the High Court had jurisdiction to do so in spite of the pendency of the appeals in the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the tenant submits that the ruling will not apply to the present case as in the case before the Supreme Court, appeals were pending and there was no question of merger of the decree of the High Court with appellate Decree. The said contention cannot be rejected as untenable.
Format for drawing a Decree in Appeal Law of India Civil procedure Code (Order 41, Rule 35) (Title) Appeal No. . . . . . . . . . . of 20 . . . from the decree of the Court of . . . . . . . . . dated the . . . . . . . […]
Sufficient Cause” is an expression which has been used in large number of Statutes. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man.
Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish that there was no compromise.
Whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit?
The appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party (Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 2(2)—Decree—Nullity—Decree obtained by fraud—Duty of litigant to come to the Court with true case and to prove it with true evidence—Withholding of vital documents in order to gain advantage over the other parties—The decree obtained by fraud is a nullity.
In Appellate Courts, the language used in filling in the decretal order, shall conform to the action recognized by the law, and shall direct that the decree of the lower Courts be either “affirmed”, “varied”, “set aside” or “reversed”. In each case in which a decree is affirmed, the terms thereof shall be recited, so as to make the appellate decretal order complete in itself. In varying a decree, the relief granted, in lieu of that originally granted shall, be fully and accurately set out. Where a decree is reversed on appeal, the consequential relief granted to the successful party shall similarly be stated. Every decretal order shall be so worded as to be capable of execution without reference to any other document, and so as to create no difficulty of interpretation.
Whether the decree, on the basis of an order, which is not a judgment, is executable ? This question was considered by the Allahabad High Court in Amod Kumar Verma Vs. Hari Prasad Burman and Others, , where it was held that such a decree is nullity by observing as under :– “There is no judgment pronounced by the trial […]
it frequently happens that in cases of execution proceedings, though there is a judgment, an order, that is, the formal expression of the decision is not drawn up. In such cases the concluding portion of the judgment which embodies the order may be treated as the order against which the appeal is preferred