What the Judge has pointed out is legally correct, and it is good that this issue has been flagged now rather than after an adverse decree.

The appeal pending before the appellate court is only against rejection of the plaint in a suit where the original and only substantive relief was a declaration that the registered gift deed is null and void. The appellate court’s jurisdiction is therefore confined to either affirming or setting aside the rejection of the plaint. It is not a fresh original suit, nor can it travel beyond the scope of the original cause of action.

When a compromise is recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the court is required to pass a compromise decree in terms of the subject-matter of the suit/appeal. Even if the compromise contains additional terms, execution of the decree will still be anchored to the original relief claimed in the suit unless the suit itself is withdrawn. This is the exact risk the Judge is cautioning you about.

In your case, the original relief was cancellation / declaration of nullity of the gift deed. If a compromise decree is passed in the appeal, the appellant can later attempt execution by saying that the appeal stood allowed and the dispute relating to the gift deed was compromised, thereby reopening the very title you are trying to protect. Even if you ultimately succeed in resisting such execution, you will be dragged into avoidable execution litigation with uncertainty.

The judge is therefore right in saying that a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3, in this factual matrix, is against your interest, because:

• The appeal is not about enforcement of a future promise of flats.
• The compromise introduces obligations outside the original suit.
• Execution proceedings may be misused to indirectly attack your title.

What you actually want is:

• Your title under the registered gift deed to remain untouched and unquestioned.
• The appeal to come to an end without any adjudication or decree affecting the gift deed.
• Your promise to gift flats to be contingent, future-oriented, and enforceable only after specific conditions are met.

The correct procedural route to achieve this is withdrawal of the appeal, not a compromise decree.

The legally safe course is as follows. The appellant (your sister) should file an application to withdraw the appeal under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, stating that the dispute has been amicably settled out of court. The appellate court will then dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. Once this happens, the rejection of the plaint by the trial court attains finality, and the challenge to the gift deed dies permanently.

Simultaneously, you and your sister may execute a separate settlement document / family arrangement / MOU, clearly recording:

• That she accepts the validity of the gift deed and your absolute title.
• That she has withdrawn the appeal voluntarily.
• That you will gift two flats only after specific conditions are fulfilled (patta in your name, building approval, JV documents registered, construction completed, etc.).
• That the obligation is independent of the concluded litigation and does not affect title.

This document should not be made part of the court decree. It should stand on its own as a contractual/family settlement obligation, enforceable only if and when conditions are satisfied.

You should not agree to a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 in the appeal. You should also not consent to any decree language that refers to the gift deed, title, or declaration relief. The judge’s concern about execution proceedings is well-founded.

To answer your specific doubts clearly:

• A compromise decree in this appeal is risky and can expose your title.
• The belief that only the terms in the affidavit will be executable is unsafe in this context.
• Withdrawal of the appeal is the correct and safest option.
• Your promise to gift flats should be outside court, conditional, and not decree-based.

In short, tell the court that settlement has been reached and seek dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, not a compromise decree. This preserves your title fully and still allows you to honour your future promise without legal jeopardy.

Do not agree for a compromise decree in the appeal. It is risky for you. The judge is right that such a decree can later be misused in execution and may affect your title...The correct way is this. Your sister should withdraw the appeal clearly accepting that the gift deed is valid and the property belongs to you. The court order should record that the appeal is withdrawn and nothing survives...Any promise to give flats should be done separately through a private family settlement or MOU. After the project is completed and documents are in your name, you can gift the flats by a registered deed.This way your title remains protected and there is no legal risk later..

1) draft the Joint Compromise Affidavit to state that the Appellant/Plaintiff accepts and admits the validity of the Registered Gift Deed and your absolute title.

2) Specify Future Obligations: Explicitly state that the consideration for settling the appeal is your promise to gift two flats only after specific conditions (Patta, Plan Approval, Construction) are met.

3) Request a "Consent Decree" on New Terms: Under Order 23 Rule 3, the court can record a compromise even if it includes matters "outside the scope of the suit," provided it relates to the parties. Use this rule to ask the Judge to pass a decree that specifically enforces the new terms of the affidavit rather than the original "Null and Void" prayer

Your Situation:
Your sister filed suit to cancel your father's gift deed to you. Court rejected her case in 2016. Now in appeal, you both want to compromise—you keep the title, you promise 2 flats after construction.

The Judge's Warning:
"If I pass a compromise decree, your sister can later file an Execution Petition (EP) asking me to cancel the gift deed anyway (the original prayer). You'll lose."

Option 1: WITHDRAW 

• Ask your sister to withdraw the appeal completely.

• Gift deed stays registered in your name—100% safe.

• No EP risk later.

• You give 2 flats post-construction as a separate gift deed (not court-ordered).

• Clean, simple, no court drama.

Option 2: COMPROMISE 

• If you must compromise, write in the memo: "Both sides agree gift deed is valid. Sister abandons all claims to cancel it."

• This closes the door on EP.

• But still riskier than withdrawal.

The correct remedy for you will be to withdraw the appeal and if a question is asked, make a statement that brother and sister have settled. The compromise affidavit document is purely to hold both of you against your word to each other, and not towards withdrawing of the appeal. Further, this compromise affidavit will act as an estoppel in case either of you do not act as per the agreement.

What was informed by court is very much correct and right and legally very important. 

It is to be noted that the appeal is only against rejection of plaint. Hence, the subject matter of the appeal is whether the rejection of plaint is correct or not and not pertaining to Joint venture or Builder issues or construction and future gift of the flats or about the confirmation of title to the appellant or the respondent. 

Judge is absolutely correct about Execution Petition (EP) risk. If a compromise decree is passed in the appeal the the  appeal decree replaces the trial court order.  After that the EP court  will be concerned with the decree alone and not its intention.

It is a very common misconception when people telling you “don’t worry, affidavit protects you.  It is nothing but a pure misguidance. 

The fact is that a compromise decree is stronger than an affidavit.  If decree language is ambiguous then the execution court will go by original relief.

In that case you would be be forced ton defend execution, file objections and possibly face adverse orders

You will be litigating again, but from a weaker position. 

Instead you can ask the appellant to file a petition under order 23 rule 1 CPC to withdraw the appeal unconditionally. 

In such a situation you will be protected by the trial court order rejecting plaint which will remain final, your gift deed will remain untouched, there will be no executable decree against you and no possibility for EP on gift deed. 

Therefore you may ask th4e appellant to withdraw the appeal and the court to pass an order dismissing the appeal as withdrawn by the appellant. 

You can enter into a separate registered agreement or a MOU with recitals stating that the gift deed is valid, title is with you.  Your obligation to gift 2 flats is conditional, i.e by retaining the Patta in your name, plan approval also on your name, getting the JV agreement executed by a registered document and after completion of the construction the flat registration to be on your name first.

: If the decree only reflects the original prayer ("suit is decreed as prayed for" – meaning the sale deed is null and void), the appellant can file an Execution Petition (EP) to cancel your registered title deed immediately, without waiting for the builder to get you a patta.

2) consent decree must be clear and specifically embody all new terms to be binding. If the terms of the settlement (builder acting, etc.) are not part of the decree, they cannot be enforced through it

3)  If the decree states your current title is "null and void," you lose your legal standing to transfer the property to the appellant later. 

4) The petition must ask the court to pass a decree based on the new terms, not just settle the old prayer. It should read: "The suit is decreed in terms of the Joint Compromise Affidavit dated 03.01.2026, which shall form part of this decree".

The petition you have drafted under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is not safe for you as the defendant in the suit and respondent in the appeal. Even though the joint compromise affidavit states that the appellant accepts your title and that you will gift flats only in the future after certain conditions, the court decree will still be tied to the subject matter of the appeal. The appeal arises out of rejection of a plaint where the sole and substantive prayer was to declare the registered gift deed as null and void. That original relief defines the legal boundaries of the appeal.

Once a compromise decree is passed in the appeal, execution proceedings will not be guided by what is stated in the affidavit but by the nature of the decree and the original lis. In execution, the appellant can argue that the appeal challenging rejection of a suit for cancellation of the gift deed stood compromised, and therefore the dispute relating to the gift deed stands resolved by decree. This opens the door for execution attempts that may directly or indirectly affect your title. This is precisely what the Judge has correctly warned you about. Even if you eventually succeed in resisting such execution, you will be forced into prolonged and risky litigation, with your title under constant threat.

A compromise decree cannot be used to introduce a new cause of action or new reliefs outside the scope of the suit or appeal. Courts have consistently held that an appellate court cannot pass a decree on matters that were never part of the original suit. Execution courts also do not examine intentions or assurances recorded in affidavits; they only look at the decree. Therefore, the belief that only the terms in the joint compromise affidavit will be enforceable is legally unsafe in your case.

What you actually seek is very clear: your registered gift deed and title must remain untouched and unquestioned; the appeal must end without any decree affecting the gift deed; and your promise to gift flats must remain future-oriented, conditional, and independent of the concluded litigation. These objectives cannot be achieved through a compromise decree in the appeal.

The correct and legally safe course is withdrawal of the appeal, not a compromise decree. The appellant should file an application to withdraw the appeal under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC stating that the matter has been settled out of court. Once the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, the trial court’s rejection of the plaint becomes final, and the challenge to the gift deed comes to a permanent legal end. No execution proceedings touching the gift deed will be possible thereafter.

To address the appellant’s concern about legal assurance, both parties can simultaneously execute a separate and independent settlement document or family arrangement outside court. This document should clearly record that the appellant accepts the validity of the gift deed and your absolute title, that the appeal has been withdrawn voluntarily, and that you will gift two flats only upon fulfillment of clearly defined conditions such as patta in your name, approval of building plans, registration of joint development and construction documents, and completion of construction. This obligation should stand independently of the litigation and should not form part of any court decree. Such a document is enforceable through civil remedies without putting your title at risk.

You should not agree to a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 in this appeal, and you should not consent to any decree language that refers to the gift deed, declaration relief, or title. The Judge’s apprehension regarding execution proceedings is legally sound and should be heeded.

In simple terms, withdrawal of the appeal is safe for you and finalizes your title, while a compromise decree in this appeal is inherently dangerous. Your future promise to gift flats must be recorded and enforced separately, not through a decree linked to a suit that attacked your ownership.

Both has its own implications 

The joint compromise affidavit or a MOU in an appeal is not legally maintainable, besides it will have a devastating effect to your title and you may not be able to defend your property nor title if an EP is filed.

Therefore the best option is that she, the appellant has to withdraw the appeal and you both can enter into a settlement deed based on the conditions that will protect your present as well as future interest.

There is no provision in CPC that allows a conditional withdrawal of an appeal based on a future uncertain event, or restoration of an appeal if a future promise is not fulfilled.

Any such order will be illegal non executable, and jurisdictionally unsound.

Courts cannot enforce future uncertain property.

That is why the Registrar is correct, 

Judge is correct and the 

Builder is protecting himself.

Registrar is legally correct.You cannot convey title in non-existent property.nYou cannot register a gift of future flats.

Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act, both prohibit it.

Alternately, you may Register an agreement to gift in future (not the gift itself).

But, it does not create any right in rem.

It only creates a contractual right.

That is why builders dislike it and call it “costly but useless.

Order 23 Rule 3 CPC – Compromise.

This allows compromise only if matter is within scope of appeal, the terms are presently enforceable.

Your promise to gift flats is outside scope, is future contingent, is not executable.

It’s better you put consent terms before court and then do the above settlement 

After consent terms a consent decree will be passed. But same should be the prayers or the plaint needs to be amended 

Order XXIII, Rule 3: Compromise of suit [2, 3].

•  It states that "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... the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith..." 
• The parties can file a compromise petition(also known as a consent memo or joint application) under this rule, outlining the terms of the agreement. This agreement can stipulate that the appeal is disposed of based on the respondent's promise to provide a gift deed

Approach should work as suggested earlier 

This approach is NOT safe for you as respondent in this appeal. There is a real risk of losing control over your title later, despite careful drafting.

The judge’s resistance is legally justified.

The suggestion relies on a half-truth:

“Under Order 23 Rule 3, a court can record a compromise even if it includes matters outside the scope of the suit, provided it relates to the parties.”

This statement is incomplete and context-blind.

In an ordinary suit, a compromise may include matters beyond the original pleadings

But not when the case is an appeal, and the 

appeal arises from rejection of plaint.

The original relief was destructive of title (null & void gift deed), hence the compromise introduces future, contingent, non-existent property rights.

All four apply to you.

Hence your risk is manifold and you may have to continue to suffer continuously for any hasty decision taken now just to overcome present crisis.

What has been suggested to you — i.e., asking the appellate court to pass a “consent decree on new terms” under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, expressly stating that the decree shall be in terms of the Joint Compromise Affidavit and not the original prayer — will still not be safe for you, and I will explain why courts and experienced lawyers are not supporting it, even though it may sound workable on paper.

First, the core legal problem cannot be bypassed by drafting language.

The appeal before the court arises from rejection of a plaint in a suit whose sole substantive relief was declaration that the registered gift deed is null and void. That relief defines the lis, the subject-matter, and the jurisdictional boundary of the appellate court.

Order XXIII Rule 3 does not give unlimited power to an appellate court to substitute a completely new cause of action or create a new executable decree unrelated to the original suit. Courts have repeatedly held that:

• A compromise decree must still be referable to the subject-matter of the suit/appeal

• An appellate court cannot, through compromise, convert itself into a court of first instance on a new dispute

No amount of drafting can change the fact that the appeal exists only because the sister sought cancellation of your gift deed.

Second, why the “new terms consent decree” is still dangerous for your title.

Even if the decree says:
“The appeal is decreed in terms of the Joint Compromise Affidavit dated … and not in terms of the original prayer,”

the execution court will not read the decree in isolation. It will read:

• the decree,

• the appeal memorandum,

• and the trial court judgment.

In execution, the appellant can still argue:

• the appeal challenging rejection of a suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed was disposed of by consent decree;

• therefore, the dispute regarding the gift deed merged into the decree;

• and the respondent’s title flows only from compliance with compromise terms.

This is exactly why the Judge told you that in EP you may lose your title, regardless of what the affidavit says. Execution courts do not decide “intentions”; they enforce decrees. And decrees passed in appeals are always interpreted in light of the original lis.

This risk cannot be eliminated by clever wording. That is why other lawyers are refusing to support this approach.

Third, Order XXIII Rule 3 does not allow what is being suggested in your case.

Yes, there are judgments saying compromises may include matters “beyond the scope of the suit.” But those judgments apply where:

• the original lis itself remains intact, and

• the compromise does not neutralise or replace the original relief

Here, the original relief was destruction of your title. Any compromise decree passed in that appeal will always be vulnerable to the argument that your title stood compromised, conditionally or otherwise.

Your case is not about enforcing a future obligation; it is about protecting an existing registered title. Courts are extremely strict here.

Fourth, conditional withdrawal of appeal is not recognised in CPC the way you want.

There is no provision in CPC that allows an appeal to be withdrawn with a clause saying:
“Appeal may be restored if respondent fails to gift flats in future.”

Order XXIII Rule 1 allows withdrawal, but:

• withdrawal is final

• restoration is permitted only in very limited circumstances (fraud, misrepresentation, court error), not future non-performance of a private promise

An appeal cannot be kept in suspended animation or revived based on future events. Courts do not supervise contingent settlements of this nature.

So the answer to your specific question is:
No, CPC does not permit withdrawal of appeal with conditional revival based on future gift of flats.

Fifth, why the appellant’s fear does not justify risking your title.

Your sister’s concern is understandable, but the law does not allow her to demand “security” by keeping your title under a judicial cloud. A registered gift deed in your favour is not a bargaining chip.

What she is effectively asking is:
“I will withdraw my challenge to your title only if the court keeps your title hostage.”

Courts do not permit this.

Sixth, the only legally safe solution that balances both sides.

The judge has already indicated the correct path, and it is the only safe one:

1. Appeal must be withdrawn unconditionally under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.
   This permanently seals your title and closes the litigation.

2. Simultaneously, you execute a separate registered settlement / family arrangement (not linked to the decree), which:

   • unequivocally records her acceptance of your title and gift deed;

   • records her voluntary withdrawal of appeal;

   • records your promise to gift two flats only upon fulfillment of specific conditions.

Registrar objections about “flats not yet built” are administrative, not legal. A family settlement can validly record future obligations; it just cannot operate as a conveyance today. That is sufficient.

Stamp duty may be a cost, but compare it to the existential risk to your title. A consent decree risk is irreversible; stamp duty is not.

Seventh, blunt and honest advice.

Because you mentioned debt and urgency, I must say this plainly:

• Do not agree to a compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 in this appeal

• Do not allow any decree to be passed in an appeal attacking your gift deed

• Do not believe that wording can save you in execution

Once a compromise decree is passed in this appeal, you will never be able to fully neutralise the risk, no matter how innocent the affidavit sounds.

If the appellant refuses to withdraw, then the appeal must be argued and dismissed on merits. That is still safer than a compromise decree.

In short:

• Withdrawal is safe for you.

• Compromise decree is structurally dangerous.

• “New terms consent decree” is legally unsound in your factual matrix.

• CPC does not allow conditional withdrawal with future revival.

• Title protection must come before settlement convenience.

The Judge is correct. The warnings you are receiving are correct. Please do not override them due to pressure.

a simple "plain memo" from only one side may not be sufficient for a final settlement; it usually requires both parties' signatures to be binding. 

2)You and the appellant can file a Joint Memo of Settlement under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC.

3)A compromise decree can be risky because the appellant might later try to execute it against your title.

4) The appellant's attempt to file a partition request via a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) can be countered by highlighting that their request was already rejected on Dec 10

5) You can argue that a partition suit is not maintainable once the trial court has already upheld your title via the gift deed. 

You can’t cancel the affidavit already filed you can at the most file fresh affidavit 

You can file a memo in the appeal, but only for a very limited and defensive purpose. You must be extremely careful about what the memo does and does not do.

A memo cannot create enforceable rights, bind the court, turn into a decree, be executed, or revive compromise risks. A memo can only inform the court of facts, record your stand, protect you from misrepresentation, and neutralise pressure tactics by the appellant. Therefore, if you file a memo, it must be expressly non-operative and non-consensual.

The memo may state only that no compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC is being pressed or consented to; that no compromise affidavit is filed or intended to be filed; that any prior signed but unfiled affidavit is withdrawn and not relied upon; that settlement discussions took place but did not mature into a court compromise; that you remain the absolute owner under the registered gift deed; and that you are willing to consider a future family settlement outside court only if the appellant withdraws the appeal under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, accepts your title and the gift deed, issues NOC for patta, and all statutory conditions are fulfilled. You must not promise gifting flats to the court. It should be phrased only as a willingness to consider, not as an undertaking or assurance.

The memo must clearly disclaim that no compromise has been concluded under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, no consent decree is sought, no rights are created by the memo, no obligation is enforceable on its basis, and that the appeal must be decided either on merits or withdrawn unconditionally. Without these disclaimers, the memo can be misused later.

If drafted correctly, such a memo cannot be used by the appellant to force a decree or execution. It is not executable, not evidence of compromise, cannot be converted into a decree, cannot be used in execution proceedings, and cannot affect your title. Courts treat such memos only as statements of position.

The appellant cannot file the old joint compromise affidavit without your consent. A compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 requires filing by both parties and confirmation by the court. An affidavit that is signed but not filed, or expressly withdrawn before filing, has no legal existence. To neutralise it completely, you should file either a memo or a short affidavit stating that any joint compromise affidavit dated 03.01.2026 was part of exploratory settlement talks, was never intended to be filed, is expressly withdrawn, and you do not consent to its filing or recording under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. Once this is on record, that affidavit becomes legally dead and cannot be revived unilaterally.

The appellant cannot force partition through a CMA in this appeal. A partition claim requires a substantive suit with pleadings, court fee, and evidence. It cannot be introduced in an appeal arising out of rejection of a plaint. The earlier rejection by the court was correct, and any repeat attempt will meet the same fate. This is pressure, not law.

Courts do not give “legal assurances” to facilitate Tahsildar or patta proceedings, nor can title be kept under judicial cloud to give administrative comfort. The only legally meaningful assurance is finality of litigation through withdrawal of the appeal. Anything else is legally unsafe.

The only safe posture for you now is to file a defensive memo or affidavit withdrawing any prior compromise affidavit and recording that no compromise decree is sought, to refuse any Order XXIII Rule 3 filing, and, if the appellant refuses to withdraw, to argue the appeal on merits. Arguing and winning the appeal is far safer than entering into a compromise decree.

A bad compromise is worse than prolonged litigation. You should not trade title certainty for speed, allow fear to push you into an irreversible decree, or permit your title to be used as security. The legal position you are taking is correct, and the court’s caution is correct.

1. A compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is fully executable in EP; the executing court can enforce only what is written in the compromise decree, not what you “intended”.​

2. If the decree even indirectly keeps the original “gift deed null and void” prayer alive or is ambiguous on your title, your sister can try in EP to interpret it against you; the judge’s caution is therefore real, especially in a declaration‑of‑title dispute.​

3. Safest for you as respondent: insist that (a) either the appeal is withdrawn under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, with your separate, private MOU/gift‑promise (not forming part of a decree); or (b) if a consent/compromise decree is unavoidable, it must clearly record that the registered gift deed in your favour is valid, that the plaintiff abandons and waives all reliefs for cancellation/partition, and that the only enforceable right under the decree is to receive specified flats after patta/plan/registration in your name—no liberty to seek cancellation of the gift deed in EP.​

4. “Withdrawal on condition that appeal can be restored if flats not given” is possible only if such liberty to restore is expressly written into the compromise/withdrawal order; otherwise, after unconditional withdrawal, restoration is very difficult.​

5. Filing a simple memo stating your promise and the MOU, without asking for a compromise decree, does not itself create an executable right for your sister but can be used later as an admission; do this only on clear advice of your local counsel who has seen all pleadings and drafts.

There is no provision in law for the respondent to give any such memo as suggested by you because any such issues are to be decided between the appellant and the respondent outside the court. If at all there is a compromise settlement between the appellant and the respondent, then they can get it in writing, duly registered with the mutually agreed conditions and the modus operandi in future which will include the terms or not suing each other in future, that the appellant recognises the title of the respondent and that the appellant is voluntarily withdrawing the appeal and shall not litigate anymore on this subject.The appellant cannot ask for new relief in the appeal suit, if at all the appellant wants partition then she has to file a fresh suit for partition which will be decided on merits and documentary evidences on both the sides. First of all the opposite advocate cannot dictate terms on the respondent just because the respondent is appearing as party ion person and that the respondent's financial background is weaker. Actually the respondent appears to be leaning towards the appellant may be due to fear or some other reason which is not advisable. The respondent's case is stronger and he can very well fight back properly so that the appellant becomes frightened over the non maintainable appeal . You are approaching this forum very frequently with repeated stories despite being properly advised by plenty of expert advocate on all such further issues with proper guidance, this attitude will weaken your process further without resolving your problems which actually is very easy to solve if you use your own tactics and the strategies, first thing you have to do is to overcome your imaginary fears and handle the issue at all places with due diligence and courage.

No, this is not the correct procedure.

The appellant can withdraw the appeal under the provisions of law as mentioned by you but there's no question of joint affidavit or any MOU attached to this petition stating that there's a settlement arrived and on that basis the appellant gives NOC and all that stories.

It will not be maintainable in law and court will not pass such orders as per your desire or your friend's incorrect and untenable design.

You are still believing in wrong guidances only and trying to adopt all types of short cuts which will actually land you in a great trouble very soon.

Yes it’s ok 

1) Do Not file the "Conditional Withdrawal" application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC.

This rule allows withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit only for formal defects or sufficient grounds, and is generally applied strictly by the courts to prevent abuse of process

2) The court typically either dismisses the appeal as withdrawn (ending its jurisdiction) or dismisses the application if conditions for Order 23 Rule 1(3) are not met. It will not usually keep the case "on file" in a suspended state indefinitely for private conditions to be met. 

3)The appropriate method for resolving a case based on a settlement agreement is to file a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.