The Supreme Court, in Krishna Kumar Ojha & Ors. v. Jitendra Chaudhary & Ors. (2026 INSC 662), upheld the setting aside of a 1994 compromise decree, ruling that an advocate cannot compromise a client's substantive rights without express authorization. Interpreting Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the Court held that a valid compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties themselves. A lawyer's signature alone, without specific authority, cannot bind a client in matters affecting property rights. The Court found that Defendant No. 5 had never signed the compromise petition, making the decree legally invalid. Rejecting the appellants' limitation argument, the Bench observed that fraud and non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements cannot be protected merely because of the passage of time. Exercising powers under Section 151 CPC, the Court upheld the restoration of the original 1989 partition suit for fresh adjudication. The ruling reinforces that advocates require explicit client consent for settlements and that courts may invalidate fraudulent or procedurally defective compromise decrees irrespective of long delays.