Consent order is a judicial order or decree passed by a court with the mutual agreement of all parties to the proceedings, recording the terms of their settlement and disposing of the suit or proceeding in accordance with those terms. Under Indian law, consent orders in civil proceedings are governed by Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the court to record a lawful agreement or compromise between parties and pass a decree in terms thereof.
Legal definition
Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides:
Order 23 Rule 3: Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit.
A consent order differs from an ordinary decree in that it is based on the agreement of the parties rather than the adjudication of the court. The court does not decide the dispute on merits; it merely records the settlement and gives it the force of a judicial decree. The agreement must be: (1) lawful — it must not be contrary to public policy, statute, or morality; (2) in writing; and (3) signed by the parties.
Order 23 Rule 3A further provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a consent decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful. The remedy lies in an application to the same court that recorded the compromise.
How courts have interpreted this term
Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh [(2006) 5 SCC 566]
The Supreme Court held that a consent decree is binding and enforceable like any other decree. The Court distinguished between a consent decree and a contested decree: a consent decree does not merge into an appellate decree (since there is no adjudication on merits to appeal), and it operates as a contract between the parties with the added force of a judicial order. The Court held that a consent decree can be set aside only on grounds that would vitiate a contract — fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, or undue influence.
Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India [(1992) 1 SCC 31]
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Order 23 Rule 3 and held that the court recording a compromise must satisfy itself that the agreement is lawful. An agreement that is void under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for example, one procured by fraud or involving an illegal object) cannot form the basis of a consent decree. The Court clarified that the power to record a compromise carries with it the duty to examine whether the compromise is genuine and lawful.
Banwari Lal v. Sukhdarshan Dayal [(1973) 1 SCC 294]
The Supreme Court held that a consent order passed under Order 23 Rule 3 is not appealable under Section 96 CPC, as it is not an adjudication on the merits of the dispute. The parties have agreed to the terms, and no adjudication has taken place that could be the subject of appellate review. The only remedy is an application to set aside the compromise before the same court.
Why this matters
Consent orders are a fundamental mechanism for dispute resolution in Indian civil litigation. They promote settlement, reduce judicial backlog, and give parties control over the outcome of their disputes. A consent decree carries the same enforceability as a contested decree — it can be executed through the execution proceedings under Order 21 CPC, and violation of its terms can attract contempt of court proceedings.
For practitioners, the key practical consideration is the extremely limited scope for challenging a consent decree. Once recorded, a consent order cannot be appealed under Section 96 CPC. The only remedy is an application under Order 23 Rule 3 to the same court that recorded the compromise, and the grounds are limited to vitiating factors like fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, or mistake. No independent suit can be filed to set aside the compromise, as Order 23 Rule 3A expressly bars such suits.
Practitioners should ensure that their clients fully understand the terms of any proposed compromise before it is recorded, as the scope for challenging it afterwards is minimal. It is advisable to have the terms drafted with precision, including timelines for compliance, consequences of breach, and provisions for enforcement.
Related terms
Related types:
Broader concepts:
Related procedures:
Frequently asked questions
Can a consent order be appealed?
No. A consent order under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is not appealable under Section 96 CPC, as it is not an adjudication on the merits. The Supreme Court in Banwari Lal v. Sukhdarshan Dayal (1973) held that since the parties have agreed to the terms, there is no adjudication that can be the subject of appellate review. The only remedy is to apply to the same court to set aside the compromise.
On what grounds can a consent order be set aside?
A consent order can be set aside only on grounds that would vitiate a contract: fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, undue influence, or mistake. The application must be made under Order 23 Rule 3 to the same court that recorded the compromise. Order 23 Rule 3A bars any independent suit to set aside a compromise decree. The applicant bears the burden of proving the vitiating factor.
Is a consent order enforceable like a regular decree?
Yes. A consent order carries the same force and effect as a contested decree. It can be executed through execution proceedings under Order 21 CPC. If a party fails to comply with the terms of the consent order, the other party can apply for execution in the same manner as for any other decree. Wilful violation may also attract contempt of court proceedings.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.