SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that mediated settlements between parties are only enforceable if they are formally approved by the court and a decree is passed
According to Srinagar-based news agency Kashmir Dot Com, a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar of the J&K High Court, while quashing the trial court’s order, observed that it had committed a grave illegality by executing the settlement without the court’s formal approval.
Referring to the Jammu and Kashmir Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2019, the court said that any settlement reached through mediation must be submitted to the court for approval before it can be legally enforced.
The court also highlighted Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which governs the compromise of suits. According to this rule, when it is proven to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been settled wholly or partially by lawful agreement or compromise, the court is required to pass an order to record the agreement, and a decree in accordance with the terms of the settlement must follow.
“The settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediator becomes a decree of the Court enforceable at law only if the same has the seal of approval of the Court and a decree is passed in terms of the said settlement,” the court stated.
In the case decided by the High Court, the petitioner had entered into a mediated agreement with the respondents in July 2024, outlining a payment of Rs. 96.50 lakh. The trial court had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10 lakh to the respondents based on the settlement. However, the petitioner challenged the trial court’s order, asserting that the settlement had not been formally approved by the court, thus making the order unenforceable.
The High Court found that the Appellate Court had not passed a decree based on the settlement, and as such, the trial court’s order was not legally valid. The court stated that only after the settlement is formalized into a decree can it be legally binding.
Advocate Shuja-ul-Haq represented the petitioner, while Advocate Sajad Ahmad Mir appeared for the respondents. (KDC)
