Synopsis

A dispute arose from cancellation of allotments of guest house blocks, restaurants and shops by HUDCO to the respondent. After years of litigation, the Single Judge, on 13.01.2017, passed a decree directing HUDCO to refund the first instalment of ₹35.75 crores with interest, while rejecting refund of earnest money and limiting interest. HUDCO appealed with a delay of 620 days, and the respondent also cross‑appealed. The Division Bench held that the decree was not a valid consent decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC because there was no written compromise signed by parties; the learned Single Judge had acted as a mediator instead of adjudicating. The delay was condoned considering HUDCO’s bona fide attempts to implement the decree and seek government approval. The impugned decree and the order dismissing review were set aside, and the suit was restored for fresh adjudication.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment: 6th May 2026

Citation: EFA(OS) 19/2018, RFA(OS) 79/2018, RFA(OS) 1/2025, RFA(OS) 2/2025 (2026:DHC:3828-DB)

Core Law: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXIII Rule 3 (compromise decree), Section 96(3) (appeal against consent decree); Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 (condonation of delay).

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Efa(os) 19 of 2018, rfa(os) 79 of 2018, rfa(os) 1 of 2025, rfa(os) 2 of 2025

Housing & urban development corporation ltd (appellant) vs. Tomorrow land technologies exports ltd & anr (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice navin chawla and hon’ble ms. justice renu bhatnagar (division bench)

Judgment reserved on: 20th march, 2026; pronounced on: 6th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – order xxiii rule 3 (compromise of suit), section 96(3) (no appeal from consent decree), order xliii r

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.