IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.38941/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUNDARAMMA W/O MAHADEV AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.388 HOSABEEDI, HINKAL VILLAGE MYSORE TALUK MYSORE – 570 017 2. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MYSORE – 570 019 3. SMT. GAYATHRAMMA W/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.361, NEAR T.K.STORE HOSABEEDI, HINKAL VILLAGE MYSORE – 570 017 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI R.S.RAVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI HONNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS (SINCE R1 IS DEAD, R2 TO R6 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF R1 V/C/O DATED 21.01.2016) 2. KUM. RENUKA, MAJOR D/O HONNEGOWDA 3. KUM. SUJATHA, MAJOR D/O HONNEGOWDA 4. MASTER MAHADEVA, MAJOR S/O HONNEGOWDA R2 TO R4 ARE R/AT DODDAMMANA BEEDI BEHIND VIDYACHITRA MANDIRA HINKAL, MYSORE -570 017 5. SRI MAYAPPA, MAJOR S/O HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 6. SMT. JAYAMMA, MAJOR W/O JAVARAPPA D/O HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R5 & R6 ARE R/AT HOSABEEDI, HINKAL VILLAGE MYSORE TALUK MYSORE-570 017 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; MS. VANISHREE.J FOR SRI BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATES FOR R6; R1 & R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2014 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & CJM, MYSORE IN O.S.NO.10/2001.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. This writ petition is by plaintiff Nos.3, 4 and 5 and is directed against the order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the trial Court in the suit in O.S.No.10/2001. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of CPC to set aside the compromise decree dated 01.03.2001.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners sought for setting aside of the compromise decree on the ground that it was obtained by fraud.
3. The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the application was not maintainable. This is not correct and it is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh [AIR 2000 SC 1165]. Hence, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the trial Court in accordance with law. Accordingly, I make the following order:
The impugned order dated 02.07.2014 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR