Navratan Lal Sharma vs Radha Mohan Sharma & Ors.

Held: Explanation to Ord.23 r.3 clearly states that void and voidable agreements under the Contract Act shall not be deemed to be lawful – By alleging fraud in his recall application, the appellant is effectively impugning the legality of the compromise as proving the same would render the agreement voidable under the Contract Act – When the court disposes of a proceeding pursuant to a compromise u/Ord.23, r.3, it bears the duty to examine this issue and be satisfied that the agreement or compromise is lawful – Said issue can be agitated by way of a recall application even after the compromise decree has been passed – High Court dismissed the application solely on the ground that the order recording the compromise does not grant liberty to restore the appeal – This is not the correct approach, as it defeats the statutory right and remedy available to the appellant under the CPC – Only the court that entertains the petition of compromise can determine its legality, at the time of recording the compromise or when it is questioned by way of a recall application – No other remedy is available to the party who is aggrieved by the compromise decree as appeal or fresh suit not maintainable – High Court not correct in curtailing the statutory remedy available to the appellant – When there is a statutory remedy available to a litigant, no question of a court granting liberty to avail of such remedy – No occasion for the court to deny liberty to file for restoration and the consequent dismissal of the recall application by the impugned order on this ground alone does not arise – As a matter of public policy courts must not curtail statutorily provisioned remedial mechanisms available to parties – Compromise deed itself recognises the parties’ right to approach the court to question its validity – Order of the High Court set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for deciding application for recall. [Paras 13-17]