High Court Quashes Trial Court Order in Land Dispute -- Directs Consent Decree Under CPC -- Petitioners Wins Writ Petition Against Respondents Family Members

Sub Category: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA

Admin

2026-02-15 15:32:05

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The Petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Trial Court that refused to pass a decree based on Consent Terms agreed upon by the parties in a civil suit. The Respondents consented to the decree. The High Court examined Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, which requires courts to pass decrees in accordance with lawful compromises. Citing Supreme Court and its own precedents, the Court held the Trial Court's refusal was contrary to mandatory CPC provisions. The Consent Terms were lawful and agreed by all parties. The High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Trial Court to pass a decree in terms of the Consent Terms.

Headnote

The High Court of Bombay at Goa quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division 'A' Court at Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No.25/2025/A -- The Trial Court had refused to pass a decree in terms of Consent Terms filed by the parties and directed the Plaintiff to lead evidence -- The High Court held that Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) mandates courts to record and pass decrees based on lawful agreements or compromises -- The Court relied on Supreme Court precedent in M/s Silver Screen Enterprises V/s Devki Nandan Nagpal and its own judgment in Luis Nemesio Menezes & anr V/s Agapito Salvador Bento Menezes -- The Consent Terms were found to be lawful and signed by all parties, with no objections from Respondents -- Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the Trial Court was directed to pass a decree in terms of the Consent Terms

Premium Content

The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access key legal points

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to pass a decree based on Consent Terms filed by the parties, despite their agreement, and instead directing the Plaintiff to lead evidence

Premium Content

The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case issues

Final Decision

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2025 and directed the Trial Court to pass a decree in terms of the Consent Terms filed on 05.11.2025

2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 81

Writ Petition No. 18 of 2026

2026-02-12

Valmiki Menezes J.

2026:BHC-GOA:240

Mr. Dajvip V. Patkar, Mr. Amay Naik Salatry

Asvas Homes LLP

Tiofilo Sebastiao De Souza alias Tiofilo De Souza, Dolsten Anthony De Souza, Brenna Maria Lobo, Doniek Savio De Souza, Joyner Sleter De Souza

Premium Content

The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case indexes

Nature of Litigation: Writ Petition challenging a Trial Court order in a civil suit

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the Trial Court order dated 05.11.2025 and a direction to pass a decree based on Consent Terms

Filing Reason

The Trial Court refused to pass a decree despite Consent Terms filed by parties, directing the Plaintiff to lead evidence instead

Previous Decisions

Trial Court passed order dated 05.11.2025 in Regular Civil Suit No.25/2025/A, refusing to pass a consent decree

Issues

Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to pass a decree based on Consent Terms under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC Whether the impugned order directing evidence recording was contrary to CPC provisions

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC mandates passing a decree on consent terms Respondents consented to the decree and recorded no objection

Ratio Decidendi

Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is mandatory, requiring courts to pass decrees based on lawful agreements or compromises filed by parties, and refusal without legal basis is invalid

Judgment Excerpts

The provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC would be directly applicable to the facts of this case, where the Consent Terms have been filed before the Court and the parties are requesting to draw a Consent Decree in terms of the consent recorded before the Court This Court in Luis Nemesio Menezes & anr V/s Agapito Salvador Bento Menezes in Writ Petition No. 278/2025 has also considered the very same provision and followed the view taken by the Supreme Court in M/s Silver Screen Enterprises (supra) Consequently, the impugned order directing the Plaintiff to record evidence is contrary to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and must be quashed and set aside

Procedural History

Consent Terms filed before Trial Court on 05.11.2025 -- Trial Court refused to pass decree and directed Plaintiff to lead evidence -- Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18 of 2026 in High Court -- High Court heard parties, made rule returnable forthwith, and disposed of matter finally