Byram Pestonji Gariwala v Union Bank of India (1992)

CPC & Limitation Act · Execution of Decrees — Modes, Attachment & Sale (ss.36–74, O.21)

Facts.

A suit was settled through a compromise entered by counsel, and the binding effect of that compromise was later challenged.

Issue.

Is a compromise recorded under O.23 r.3 binding, and does a pleader have authority to compromise for the client?

Held.

A lawful compromise recorded under O.23 r.3 binds the parties and results in a valid consent decree; a pleader has implied authority to enter a compromise on the client’s behalf, to be exercised with care.

Why it matters.

It is the reference point for the compromise-of-suits limb of Order 23.

📄 Full CPC & Limitation Act notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All CPC & Limitation Act topics