Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXIII Rule 3 (i) appeal is not maintainable against a consent decree; (ii) no separate suit can be filed; (iii) consent decree operates as an estoppel and binding unless it is set aside by the court by an order on an application under the proviso to 10 (2006) 5 SCC 566 Page 8 of 15 Order XXIII Rule 3 C.P.C.; and (iv) the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree is to approach the Court which recorded the compromise as it was opined to be nothing else but a contract between the parties superimposed with the seal of approval of the Court – Referred to Pushpa Devi Bhagat (Dead) through L.R. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) v. Rajinder Singh (2006) 5 SCC 566 (Para 7)
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908; Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC -No application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. When it is not even the pleaded case in the application for amendment that due diligence was there at the time of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed for by way of amendment. All what was pleaded was oversight. The same cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings at the fag end of the trial especially when admittedly the facts were in knowledge of the plaintiffs. (Para 8)
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 CPC -When initially, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession. By way of amendment, relief of declaration of the compromise decree being null and void was also sought. The same would certainly change the nature of the suit, which may be impermissible – An application for amendment may be rejected if it seeks to introduce totally different, new and inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of the suit. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. prevents an application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue. The burden is on the party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not be sought earlier-One of the important factor is as to whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other side or it fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case or a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred on the date of filing the application.- M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) (2019) 4 SCC 3321 (Para 9-11)