[ UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT ]

VINEET KUMAR JAIN vs ARCHANA GARG FA 38/15 23/10/19 [ Alok JJ ]

• Order 23 Rule 3A CPC Bar to suit – Initially, the suit was filed by the respondent merely on the strength of consent decree passed in the divorce suit – Subsequently, various things were stated in the plaint regarding conduct of the parties as well as arrangement of consideration money for the purchase of the house – Suit was not filed claiming herself owner of the house by the respondent. It is important to note that the initial objection of the appellant was also to the effect that terms and conditions of the consent decree passed in Divorce Suit had been violated by the respondent. In fact, on 04.10.2008 the appellant informed the Court that he has no intention to evict the appeal. It has been recorded in the order sheet dated 04.10.2008 of the suit – The settled legal position, as discussed, is that the consent decree is binding. It is an agreement between the parties with the approval of the Court. It may not act as res-judicata but it acts as estoppel. If for the enforcement of a consent decree, a separate suit is permitted to be filed, it will give rise to the multiplicity of the suit. It would be against the intention of the legislature as embodied under Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC. The suit, as such, is not maintainable.