A compromise decree is not an order passed by the court instead it is an agreement both the parties agreed on and the court gives its acceptance over it.
According to the Supreme Court of India, if the compromise decree is illegal or fraudulent, an application can be filed with the same court to have it revoked.
The court stated that the appellant's application is within the jurisdiction of the court that issued the decree. As a result, the appellant may submit an application with the court or pursue an appeal under Rule 43 of the 1A CPC.
The issue had been addressed in the case of Banwari Lal Vs. Chando Devi (Smt.) (Through LRS.) & Anr, but the parties afterwards challenged the compromise decision by filing a petition under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 or an appeal under Section 96(1) of the Code. In this case, the petitioner questioned the legality of a compromise under Order 43 Rule 1-A of the Code.
After reviewing the evidence presented in this case, the court determined that the compromise was illegal and that the order must be revoked. The ruling was not in accordance with the law as stipulated in Rule 3.
The court examines the entire case filed on behalf of the appellant to determine if the parties' compromise or agreement is formed in accordance with the law. If the arrangement is proved to be illegal or fraudulent, the compromise decision will be null and void. In this case, the High Court's order is overturned, and a fresh decision is sought in accordance with the law.
The appellant has stated that they are not seeking a settlement and has not appeared in court to support their view. As a result, of the defendant's deception, the compromise and the court dismissed their application.
The appellant cannot recall the compromise decree filled under the order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in conjunction with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which quashed the petitioner's challenge to the court's compromise decision.