In Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma & Ors., the Supreme Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court’s dismissal of a recall application and held that restoring an appeal following a failed compromise is a statutory right and the sole remedy available to the aggrieved party. The appellant, whose suit for declaration was dismissed by the Trial Court, filed a first appeal before the High Court, which was disposed of based on a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. When the compromise failed, the appellant sought restoration of the appeal, but the High Court dismissed the application, citing the absence of explicit liberty for restoration in its earlier order. Citing Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh, the Supreme Court emphasized that only the court recording the compromise can examine its legality, whether at the time of recording or during a recall application. It concluded that since alternative remedies like filing a fresh suit or appeal are unavailable to challenge a compromise decree, denying restoration unjustly curtails a party’s right to a statutorily provided remedy. Accordingly, the Court directed the restoration of the appeal.
