Partly allowed

Gaytri Devi v. Rajat Joon & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Dec 2025FAO(OS)/130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed three appeals but allowed the underlying maintainability challenge. It held that Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC does not allow a non-party to seek recall of a compromise decree. Consequently, a Single Judge's interlocutory order allowing such an application was set aside as it was maintainable only because the issue was wrongly treated.

What did the court decide?

The Order dated 01.09.2025 allowing the application is set aside. The appeals are allowed on the issue of maintainability. The matter disposed of.

Gaytri Devi Vs Rajat Joon & Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~48 to 50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 130/2025, CM APPL. 68035/2025 (Stay), CM APPL. 68036/2025 (Ex.) & CM APPL. 68037/2025 (Delay of 11 days in filing appeal)

¶4

GAYTRI DEVI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Advocate [Appearance not given]

¶5

versus

¶6

RAJAT JOON & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

¶7

¶8

- FAO(OS) 132/2025, CM APPL. 68376/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 68377/2025 (Ex.)

¶9

SHRI RAJAT JOON .....Appellant Through: Mr. Advocate [Appearance not given]

¶10

versus

¶11

SMT. GYATRI DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

¶12

¶13

- FAO(OS) 133/2025, CM APPL. 68378/2025 (Stay), CM APPL. 68379/2025 (Ex.) & CM APPL. 68380/2025 (11 days delay in filing appeal)

¶14

SMT. ROSHNI JOON .....Appellant Through: Mr. Advocate [Appearance not given]

¶15

versus

¶16

SHRI RAJAT JOON & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

¶17

CORAM:

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 11:53:07

¶21

¶22

O R D E R 09.12.2025

¶23

The present three Appeals have been filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, assailing the Order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No. 6980/2022 and IA No. 16496/2025, filed by Respondent No.3/Mrs. Sonia Joon, in CS(OS) 138/2020 titled as “ Shri Rajat Joon v. Shri Rajinder Singh Joon & Ors. ”.

¶24

At the outset, we find it apposite to herein reproduce the relevant portions of the Order dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court, which reads as under:

¶25

¶26

By the Impugned Order dated 01.09.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed Respondent No.3/ Applicant to lead evidence in IA No.6980/2022 (Application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC) and also allowed IA No.16496/2025 (Application under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC).

¶27

We deem it apposite to place on record the family tree of the parties to facilitate a clearer understanding of their inter se relationship, the same is reproduced below:

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in FAO(OS) 130/2025 inter alia contends that the Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not envisage the filing of an application for recall of decree passed on the basis of compromise, particularly at the hands of Respondent No.3/ Applicant who was not party to the suit.

¶29

He submits that entertaining such an application would entail an inquiry into the terms of settlement which is not contemplated in an application for recall.

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 11:53:07

¶32

He further submits that the Compromise Decree will not be binding upon Respondent No.3/ Applicant as she was not a party to the suit.

¶33

Let notice be served upon the Respondents by all permissible modes, including Dasti , returnable on 26.11.2025 to be listed in the category of “ Supplementary List ” matters.

¶34

We have heard learned counsel representing the parties at length. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3/Mrs. Sonia Joon, while defending the Impugned Order, has made the following two submissions:-

¶35

(i) The present Appeals are premature, as these assail an Interlocutory Order passed by the learned Single Judge; however, an appeal under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, is only maintainable where the order effectively determines the issue and partakes the character of a final order on the point in question.

¶36

(ii) The compromise decree passed by the Court on the basis of the settlement will be binding upon Respondent No. 3.

¶37

This Court has considered the above-stated submissions, and finds no merit in either of them. It has already been clarified, by the learned Single Judge vide Order dated 01.09.2025 in CS(OS) 138/2020, that the compromise decree shall not be binding upon Respondent No. 3, as she was not a party to the same. We concur with it and are of the same considered view.

¶38

It is a settled position of law relating to civil suits that there are two types of judgments vis-à-vis the parties it affects. These judgments are either in rem or in personam.

¶39

The present case falls in the category of a decree in personam

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 11:53:07

¶42

and therefore, will be binding only between the parties. In addition, since the said compromise decree is based on a settlement dated 14.10.2020, with the approval of the Court vide Order dated 21.10.2020, and therefore there has been no adjudication on merits.

¶43

Regarding the submission made by the learned counsel for the Respondent no. 3 on the aspect of premature filing of the present Appeals, we are of the considered view that this submission, too, lacks substance because the learned Single Judge has held that Interlocutory Application bearing no. 16496/2025, filed by the Respondent No. 3 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [“ CPC ”] for setting aside the compromise decree is maintainable.

¶44

A bare reading of Order XXIII Rule 3 makes it abundantly evident that the application for setting aside the compromise decree at the behest of an individual who is neither party to the compromise nor to the suit is not maintainable.

¶45

Since the issue of maintainability of the application has already been decided, the present Appeals under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 are maintainable. While allowing these three Appeals, the Order dated 01.09.2025 is set aside in the aforesaid terms.

¶46

The present Appeals along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of.

¶47

A photocopy of the Order passed today be kept in the connected matters.

¶48

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶49

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. DECEMBER 9, 2025/nd/kr/dj

¶50

This is a digitally signed order.

¶51

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/12/2025 at 11:53:07

Gaytri Devi v. Rajat Joon & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaytri Devi v. Rajat Joon & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gitanjali Khanna Vs Tarini Mehta & Ors.

Sonia Mehra Vs Romy Mehra & Ors.

Vinod Kumar Manaktala (Since Deceased and Represented by Lrs) and Ors. Vs Vipin Kumar Manaktala & Ors.

Nakul Manaktala & Ors. Vs Vipin Kumar Manaktala & Ors.

Dk Jain (Since Deceased Thr His Legal Heirs) Vs Cs Agarwal and Anr.

Mukesh Saini Vs Madan Lal Saini (Since Decd) Thr Lrs and Ors.

Nirmal Jain Vs Cs Agarwal and Anr.

Msa Global Llc Oman Vs Engineering Projects India Limited

Sonia Mehra Vs Romy Mehra & Ors.

Tarun Sawhney Vs Uma Lall ( Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors.

Upma Khanna & Anr. Vs Tarun Sawhney & Ors.

Priya Jangid Vs Ashish Anan

Sardar Tejinder Singh Vs Sardar Govinder Singh

Sh. Rahul Chhillar Vs Smt. Jyoti Chhillar