Compromise Decree Without Express Authorization of Party Is Invalid

Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Krishna Kumar Ojha & Ors. v. Jitendra Chaudhary & Ors

• Citation: 2026 INSC 662

• Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

• Date of Judgment: July 1, 2026

• Area of Law: Civil Procedure, Compromise Decree, Fraud, Limitation

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders of the Trial Court and High Court, which had set aside a compromise decree passed in a partition suit in 1994. The Court held that the compromise decree was invalid as it was signed only by the counsel for defendant No. 5, without any express authorization from the client. The Court reiterated that under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties themselves or by their duly authorized representatives. A counsel cannot sign a compromise decree on behalf of a client without express authority or exigent circumstances. The Court further held that the substantial delay of 28 years in challenging the decree did not bar the relief, as the respondents only came to know of the fraudulent decree shortly before filing the application. The matter was remanded for full trial on merits.

Relevant Facts

• A partition suit was filed in 1989 seeking 1/4th share in the ancestral property of Thakur Ojha.

• Defendant No. 5 (Chaturbhuj Chaudhary), the predecessor of the respondents, appeared through counsel on summons.

• During the pendency of the suit, a compromise petition was filed jointly by the plaintiffs and defendants, which was accepted by the Trial Court on February 22, 1994, and a final decree was prepared on May 27, 1997.

• Nearly 25 years later, in April 2022, the legal heirs of defendant No. 5 filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking setting aside of the compromise decree on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud and without the signatures of defendant No. 5.

• The Trial Court allowed the application on February 7, 2024, setting aside the compromise decree. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Trial Court's order.

• Aggrieved, the legal heirs of the plaintiffs (who had benefite

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