SC Restores Art 227 Revision Decided Without Notice

No Notice, Pending Compromise Plea Suppressed: Supreme Court Restores Article 227 Revision to Punjab and Haryana High Court

Published: 29 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court has set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order of 10.11.2025 that, on a revision under Article 227, directed a trial court to draw up a final decree-sheet within two months. The appellant was never issued notice, and the revision petitioner had not disclosed a pending Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC application to record a family settlement, or his own objections to it. The revision goes back to the High Court (paras 3-4).

Key holdings

The High Court allowed the Article 227 revision without issuing notice to the appellant (paras 3-4).

The revision petitioner suppressed the pending Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC settlement application and his own objections to it (para 4).

A litigant invoking Article 227 must disclose all material facts; no blame lay on the unserved appellant (para 4).

The revision is restored to the High Court, to be decided taking note of the settlement application and the objections (para 4).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

In a civil suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 24.08.2017 and a final decree on 04.03.2024 (para 4). According to the appellant, Ashok Kumar, the parties then settled on 25.07.2024, and he and respondents 2 to 5 applied under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in C.S. No. 243/2021 to dispose of the matter in terms of the memorandum recording the family settlement (para 4). About a year later, on 20.08.2025, respondent No. 1, Kewal Krishan, objected to that application (para 4). He then filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 (CR No. 8018/2025) to have the final decree drawn up. The High Court allowed it on 10.11.2025 (para 3).

Court's Findings

The Court found that the respondent, though the settlement application and his own objections were well within his knowledge, suppressed them and presented the revision as if no proceedings were pending before the trial court (para 4). The High Court had not issued notice to the appellant, its respondent No. 1, and neither the application nor the objections appear to have been brought to its notice; the fact that the final decree had not crystallised seems to have swayed it (para 4). Had either side disclosed the pending application, the impugned order would not have been passed (para 4). No blame could be laid on the appellant, who, not issued notice, could not place these facts before the High Court; the respondent, having invoked Article 227, ought to have disclosed all material facts, including the application and the objections (para 4). The order therefore failed for two reasons: no notice to the appellant, and the respondent's non-disclosure (para 4). The order cites no decision and says nothing on the merits of the settlement.

Legal Principle

A party invoking Article 227 must disclose all material facts, including a pending Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC compromise application and objections to it. An order obtained without notice to the affected party and on such non-disclosure cannot be sustained; the revision is restored for decision in accordance with law (para 4).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For a party whose compromise application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is pending, this order shows the remedy when the other side quietly obtains a supervisory order elsewhere: an Article 227 order passed without notice to them, on a petition that hid the pending application, was set aside and the revision restored (para 4). Petitioners should disclose every pending application and objection touching the decree they seek to enforce, since the Court held that duty rested on the party who invoked Article 227 (para 4). Compare B. Anasuyamma on compromise decrees and family settlements, and Vinod Mangaldas Shah on natural justice.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.