IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.541 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. R.Krishnappa, S/o. Late B.Rangaswamy Naidu, Aged about 74 years, 2. Sri. Ramu, S/o. Late B.Rangaswamy Naidu, Aged about 72 years, Both are residing at No.5/1, Padmasale Kichaiah Lane, Cotton Pete, OTC Road, Bengaluru-560053.
(By Sri. K.L.Shreenevasa, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. V.Rukmini, W/o. Late R.Varadaraju, Aged about 74 years, 2. Sri. V.Udaykumar, S/o. Late R.Varadaraju, Aged about 57 years, …Appellants 3. Sri. V.Jayakumar, S/o. Late R.Varadaraju, Aged about 55 years, 4. Sri. V.Srinivasulu, S/o. Late R.Varadaraju, Aged about 53 years, 5. Sri. V.Venugopal, S/o. Late R.Varadaraju, Aged about 49 years, 6. Smt. V.Rajeshwari, D/o. Late R.Varadaraju, W/o. Prabhu, Aged about 51 years, All are residing at No.5, Padmasale Kichaiah Lane, Cotton Pete, OTC Road, Bengaluru-560053.
... Respondents This RFA is filed under Section 96(1) of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2019 passed on I.A.No.V in O.S.No.6919/2017 on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, allowing the I.A.No.V filled under Order VII Rule 11(a)(d) read with Section 151 of CPC, for rejection of plaint.
This RFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Heard the appellants’ counsel.
2. The appellants’ have challenged the order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the trial Court on IA No.V filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6919/2017.
3. The appellants being the plaintiffs filed the said suit challenging the compromise reported in FDP No.38/2000 alleging fraud. The trial Court has held that a separate suit to challenge the compromise is not permitted in view of Order 23 Rule 3(A) of Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the appellants tries to argue that since there was fraud in the compromise, a separate suit is maintainable for questioning the compromise. This submission is not acceptable. According to Order 23 Rule 3(A) of CPC, validity of the compromise can be challenged in the same suit. The trial Court has come to right conclusion to reject the plaint holding that the suit is not maintainable. I do not find any infirmity in the said order. Therefore appeal is dismissed.
At this stage appellants’ counsel requests for according liberty to the appellants to challenge the compromise in the suit. I do not think that liberty is necessary to be granted. If according to appellants, they are victims of fraud, they have every right to question the compromise that has affected their right and interest in the subject matter of the suit.
KMV/-
Ct-bl Sd/- JUDGE