Challenging 30-Year-Old Consent Decrees: Scope of Fraud Pleadings and Attorney Authority Under Civil Procedure

sketch of the Bombay High Court
Case
M/S. BHANDUP ESTATE AND ORS. v. INDUBAI RAJARAM OHOL AND ORS. (Bombay High Court, 09-10-2026)
Law
Code of Civil Procedure, Constitution of India, Limitation Act, Registration Act.

Highlights of the Judgment:

  • Examination of the validity of a consent decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 and Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
  • Interpretation of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the necessity of specific pleadings of fraud and due diligence.
  • Analysis of the scope of a general Power of Attorney granted to a manager to compromise suits on behalf of an Association of Persons.
  • Evaluation of the authority of counsel and constituted attorneys to enter into lawful compromises citing Supreme Court precedents.
  • Distinction on the non-applicability of representative suit provisions under Order I Rule 8 and Order XXIII Rule 3-B of the Code.