Summary
The Supreme Court remanded the second appeal because the High Court had bypassed the disputed compromise’s validity and proceeded to the merits. It first had to determine whether the compromise was genuine, lawful and binding. A valid compromise would preserve the earlier compromise disposal; an invalid one would require setting that order aside and reviving the second appeal for decision on merits. Evidence could be recorded through the trial court.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could decide the second appeal on merits without first resolving the disputed compromise pursuant to the earlier Supreme Court remand.
Provisions considered
- Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The dispute over the compromise’s genuineness, legality and binding effect had to be decided before considering the second appeal on merits. (¶¶ 8, 14–21)
Held
- The High Court failed to carry out the earlier remand when it abandoned the inquiry into the compromise and disposed of the second appeal on merits. Determining the compromise’s genuineness and legal effect was the necessary first step. (¶ 8–18)
- The High Court could remit the matter to the trial court for recording the parties’ evidence within a fixed time, and then decide the compromise question on that evidence. (¶ 19)
- If the compromise was lawful and binding, the order disposing of the second appeal on the compromise would continue to operate. If it was not, that order had to be set aside and the second appeal revived for adjudication on merits. (¶ 20–21)
- The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remanded for the required inquiry and consequential decision, expeditiously and preferably within six months. (¶¶ 14, 18–22)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and matter remanded to decide the compromise question first, preferably within six months.