Correct option is D
The correct remedy available to a party who claims that a compromise decree was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake is to file a fresh suit to set aside the compromise decree. According to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, specifically under
Order XXIII Rule 3A, no appeal, revision, or review lies against a compromise decree obtained with the consent of the parties. Hence, the only remedy for the suffering party is to file a new suit challenging the decree based on fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake.
Information Booster:
1.
Order XXIII Rule 3A of CPC bars filing an appeal or review against a compromise decree.
2. A second suit can be filed when the decree is alleged to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
3. Compromise decrees are based on mutual consent, but fraudulent means undermine the validity of such agreements.
4. Revision and appeal are not proper remedies because they review errors of law or fact, not fraud in the compromise.
5.
Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act also allows the setting aside of judgments obtained by fraud or collusion.
Additional Information:
·
Appeal (Option a): Appeals are applicable when there is an error in judgment, but not for consent decrees unless fraud is evident.
·
Revision (Option b): Revision only applies where the Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction, but it is not a remedy for challenging a compromise decree.
·
Review (Option c): A review is sought when there is a clear error on the face of the record, not for fraud or misrepresentation in compromise decrees.
·
Second suit (Option d): A second suit is explicitly provided under Order XXIII Rule 3A as the remedy for challenging fraudulent compromise decrees.
Note- This question was deleted from the official answer key.
