(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.96(3), O.23 R.3— Proviso inserted w.e.f. 1-2-1977 - Appeal - Not maintainable against consent decree - Party to approach Court which passed consent decree and establish that there was no compromise. The position that emerges from the amended provisions of O. 23, can be summed up thus :(1) No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree having regard to the specific bar contained in S. 96(3), CPC; (ii) No appeal is maintainable against the order of the Court recording the compromise (or refusing to record a compromise) in view @page-SC2629 of the deletion of Cl. (m), R. 1, O. 43; (iii) No independent suit can be filed for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful in view of the bar contained in R. 3-A; (iv) A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the Court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under the proviso to R. 3 of O. 23. Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the Court which recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish that there was no compromise. In that event, the Court which recorded the compromise will itself consider and decide the question as to whether there was a v....