Appeals end in three ways: judgment, dismissal for default, or the parties’ own decision. The third is the least litigated and the most misunderstood. Withdrawing a first appeal is not like withdrawing a suit, because a decree already exists below and withdrawal leaves it standing in full force. Compromising an appeal, meanwhile, converts the parties’ bargain into a decree that supersedes the trial court’s. Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, applied to appeals through Section 107, governs both — and the differences decide what the parties can and cannot do afterwards.
Withdrawal: abandoning the challenge, keeping the consequences
An appellant is master of his appeal and may abandon it, wholly or against some respondents only. But the arithmetic differs fundamentally from withdrawing a suit. A plaintiff withdrawing a suit (without liberty) loses the claim; an appellant withdrawing an appeal loses the challenge — and thereby hands the respondent a final, confirmed decree. Three consequences follow: the decree becomes executable without the cloud of the appeal; findings in it bind the parties as res judicata; and any interim stay or deposit arrangement in the appeal dissolves, with the respondent entitled to the fruits of the decree, including amounts deposited.
Partial withdrawal
An appeal can be withdrawn against some respondents or confined to some reliefs; what is given up attains finality, what is pressed continues. Cross-objections by the respondent survive the appeal’s withdrawal and can still be heard.
Costs and conditions
The appellate court may impose costs on withdrawal, and where the appeal was used to hold off execution, respondents legitimately press for compensatory costs or interest for the period of the stay.
Strategic timing
Withdrawal before the appeal is heard looks very different from withdrawal after adverse observations in court. The earlier the decision, the cleaner the exit — and the better the negotiating position in any parallel settlement.
Compromise in appeal: a new decree replaces the old
Settlement at the appellate stage is common — the trial judgment has clarified the risks, and both sides can now price them. The machinery is Order XXIII Rule 3: a lawful agreement, in writing, signed by the parties, which the court verifies before decreeing. Done properly, the compromise decree supersedes the decree under appeal to the extent of its terms; done loosely, it plants the seeds of the next decade’s litigation.
The bar that makes the hearing decisive
Order XXIII Rule 3A bars a separate suit to set aside a compromise decree, and consent decrees are not appealable. The only door left is an application to the recording court alleging that there was in law no lawful agreement — fraud, coercion, forgery, want of authority. Courts guard that door narrowly. For parties, the message is that the compromise hearing is not a formality: objections to voluntariness or authority must be raised then, on the record, because the law is designed to make that moment final.
A settlement reached in mediation attached to the appellate court follows the same route — reduced to writing, signed, and decreed under Rule 3. And where the dispute is matrimonial or quasi-criminal proceedings travel with the civil fight, the compromise should deal with them expressly; a decree that settles the property but forgets the pending complaints settles nothing.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens to the trial court decree when an appeal is withdrawn?
It stands confirmed and becomes final between the parties. Withdrawal of an appeal is abandonment of the challenge, not of the underlying rights already adjudicated — the appellant cannot file a fresh appeal against the same decree, and the decree operates as res judicata in future litigation.
Can an appellant withdraw an appeal with liberty to file afresh?
The liberty-to-sue-afresh mechanism of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) belongs to suits suffering from a formal defect. In appeals, the limitation period against the decree has usually run, so even where withdrawal is permitted, a fresh appeal is a practical impossibility — which is why courts and counsel treat withdrawal of an appeal as irrevocable.
How is a compromise recorded at the appellate stage?
Under Order XXIII Rule 3, the agreement must be lawful, in writing and signed by the parties. The appellate court satisfies itself of its genuineness and passes a decree in terms of the compromise, which replaces the decree under appeal to the extent of the settlement. Terms beyond the subject matter of the suit can be recorded, but are enforced as a decree only so far as they relate to the suit.
Can a compromise decree passed in appeal be challenged later?
No appeal lies against a consent decree, and a separate suit to set aside a compromise is barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A. The remedy of a party alleging that the compromise was vitiated — by fraud, coercion or lack of authority — is to apply to the very court that recorded it, which makes the recording hearing the real moment of scrutiny.