Non-Parties Asserting Independent Rights Can Appeal Consent Decrees with Leave: Supreme Court Upholds 11-Year Delay Condonation and Interim Injunction

Case Name: Girishbhai Natwarlal Patel v. Gautam Punjabhai Palkhiwala (Dead) by LRs & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 30 October 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1177.

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the bar against appeals from consent decrees under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be mechanically invoked against persons who were neither parties to the original proceedings nor participants in the compromise and who assert independent legal rights prejudicially affected by the decree. Such persons must, however, prima facie establish a legally cognisable interest and obtain leave of the appellate court; non-party status does not confer an unrestricted right of appeal.

The Court also upheld condonation of approximately eleven years’ delay, holding that the elapsed period could not be considered in isolation from the applicants’ status as non-parties, their explanation regarding knowledge of the decree and their subsequent conduct. In the peculiar circumstances, it sustained interim protection granted before disposal of the applications for leave and condonation, noting the need to preserve the disputed property and the subsequent hearing afforded to the person restrained.

Summary: The dispute concerned a consent decree dated 29 April 2013 passed in a suit instituted by Geetagram Cooperative Housing Society for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11 September 1996. Respondent Nos. 1–9, who were not parties to either the suit or the compromise, claimed an independent interest in the land and sought leave from the Gujarat High Court to challenge the decree.

Girishbhai Natwarlal Patel, in whose favour a sale deed was executed on 18 June 2022 with the Society joining as a confirming party, opposed their challenge. He contended that an appeal against a consent decree was barred, that the applicants lacked standing and that the eleven-year delay had not been satisfactorily explained. He also challenged the High Court’s ex parte injunction restraining him from dealing with the property, particularly because it preceded the decisions on leave, condonation and his impleadment.

Rejecting the objection to maintainability, the Supreme Court distinguished a consenting party seeking to escape its compromise from a stranger asserting independent rights affected by that compromise. It also distinguished Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh, where the challenger derived title through a party to the original proceedings. Here, Respondent Nos. 1–9 did not trace their claim through any party to the consent decree.

The Court found sufficient material to justify appellate scrutiny of their grievance. Although mutation entries do not establish title, the documents and circumstances relied upon disclosed more than a remote or imaginary interest. The Court noted that execution of the 2013 decree began only in 2020, followed by the conveyance to Patel in 2022. His alleged role as power-of-attorney holder for the original defendants and his association with the plaintiff Society also warranted examination. These circumstances were not treated as conclusive proof of fraud or collusion.

On delay, the respondents claimed to have discovered alterations in the revenue records around August 2023 and thereafter sought information, including through the RTI process. The Court held that knowledge of the decree could not simply be attributed to them from the date it was passed.

Upholding the injunction, the Court accepted that awaiting sequential decisions on leave and impleadment could have exposed the property to alienation or encumbrance. It also emphasised that continuation of the initial ex parte protection followed a hearing at which Patel contested the relief.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Gujarat High Court’s orders granting leave to appeal, condoning the delay and protecting the disputed property through an interim injunction. It expressly left the rival title claims and allegations of fraud and collusion open for determination in accordance with law.