Compromise decree cannot be passed without mentioning execution procedure, terms of compromise: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that a court cannot pass a decree on the basis of a compromise agreement between parties without specifying how the suit is to be decided/executed and what are the terms of the compromise [Dr. Drisya DT & Ors. v Dr Kiran & Ors.]..A division bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar added that even when a suit is withdrawn, the stipulations have to be provided in the decree.“As per the definition of the decree in Section 2(2) of the Code, a decree shall be the adjudication of the matters in controversy in the suit. It can either be preliminary or final. On the basis of an agreement by which the parties agreed to settle a suit, without saying how is the suit to be decided and what are the terms of compromise, no decree can be passed. If the suit is to be withdrawn also, there shall be a stipulation to that effect,” the judgment said..The court was considering an appeal moved by a woman along with her children against a family court order that supposedly erred while recording the compromise agreement between the appellant and her husband.By way of background, there were several cases between the appellant and her husband who was the respondent before the High Court. The parties had signed a compromise agreement in one of their cases before a family court. However, when the family court recorded the compromise agreement, it was stated that all litigations between appellants and the respondents pending before it and the High Court have been settled.The appellants filed an interlocutory application challenging the said judgment on the allegation that it was barred under provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the family court dismissed it leading to the present plea before the High Court. The counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant is a doctor by profession holding a post graduate degree in medicine and had signed the compromise agreement after understanding all the clauses. After that, she cannot be allowed to retract the judgment, he added.The court, on noting that the other appellants were minors, said that when minors are parties to the compromise decree which is compromised by the next friend or guardian, leave of the court is a mandatory pre-requirement. Hence, the family court order is erroneous in that aspect as well, the court said.“The 2nd and 3rd appellants are minors. When a compromise decree is passed in a suit to which the minor is a party, it is the mandate of Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code to obtain leave of the court before the disposal of the suit. O.P.No.780 of 2021 was allowed in terms of the Annexure A1 compromise without obtaining such leave from the court. Leave of the court is a mandatory pre-requirement when the suit is compromised by the next friend or guardian. In that view of the matter, Annexure A2 judgment by which the compromise was recorded is an apparent error,” the Court said.The Court also found the family court's order to be erroneous on the ground that it passed a decree on the basis of a compromise agreement between the parties without specifying the terms of the compromise or how the suit is to be decided/executed.Therefore, the High Court set aside the family court order and allowed the appeal..The appellants were represented by advocates MR Dhanil and Senitta P Jojo.The respondents were represented by advocates S Majida S, Ajikhan M, and Muhammad Suhail KH..[Read Judgment]