Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The decisions of this Court referred to above in the objects and reasons for introducing R. 3A are Bhima Rama Jadhav v. Abdul Rashid (1960) 38 Mys U 554 : (AIR 1961 Mys 175) and Bhima Rama Jadhav v. Abdul Rashid (1967) 2 Mys U 509: (AIR 1968 Mys 184). The learned single Judge Hegde, J. who delivered the judgment in the first referred case observed thus (at p. 177 of AIR) :

".............As observed by Gajendragadkar, J. in Govind Waman's case , it is the duty of the Court to see whether the, compromise in question contains any illegal terms; if it does contain such terms the Court has not only the right but has the duty to refuse to make it a decree of Court. It is not the law that the Court is bound to accept every compromise and make it a decree of Court. If it has accepted a compromise and made it a decree of the Court then the compromise ceases to be a contract simpliciter; it becomes a decree of Court The oft quoted observation that a Court of competent jurisdiction can decide a thing rightly as well as wrongly though might looked at first sight, embodies an important principle of law i.e. the finality of decisions. It is human to error and Judges are human. Their errors may be errors of facts as well as errors of law. If they commit any error either of fact or of law, the same can be corrected only by following the procedure laid down by law. No one can ignore a decree of a competent Court unless it is void under law. It is true that a compromise decree is open to attacks ' which are available against a contract and as such, it may be got set aside within the period of limitation prescribed, on grounds which may be sufficient to invalidate a contract But the fact remains that it must be got set aside and that is what has not been done in this case ................."