Compromise agreements are binding and cannot be challenged on claims of fraud or coercion after significant delay.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 9.7.2025 rejecting Review Petition in R.P.No.1/2025 seeking recall of a compromise that was entered into in O.S.No.44/2021.

2. Heard Sri.Nagendra Naik R, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

(a) A Memorandum of Understanding is said to have been entered into between Excellent Solar and the respondent No.1 in implementing a particular project drawing up certain terms and conditions. The dispute arose between the two which led the respondent No.1 to institute a money recovery suit in Commercial O.S.No.44/2021 before the concerned Court seeking recovery of Rs.2,36,33,593/-. In the said suit, a compromise is entered into between the parties on 12.03.2022. On 12.03.2022, the compromise is noted and the matter is referred to Lok Adalat, finally, the issue gets culminated before the Lok Adalat recording, the compromise and closing the proceedings. This happens in the year 2022. Petitioner does not honor the compromise or partially honors the compromise by paying Rs.20,00,000/-, the first chunk, that was agreed on. Therefore, the respondent No.1 institutes the execution proceedings. In the execution proceedings, an arrest warrant is issued in the year 2023. The petitioner then approaches this Court in W.P.No.10908/2024. The Coordinate Bench disposes the petition by the following order:

"5. In that view of the matter, it is suffice for this Court to direct the Executing Court to dispose of the execution case as expeditiously as possible and to continue the interim order till the disposal of the execution case.

6. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

ORDER

a) The writ petition is disposed of.

b) The Executing Court is directed to dispose of Com.Ex.No.131/2023, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

c) Parties shall co-operate for the early disposal of the matter.

d) It is made clear that the interim order granted by this Court shall continue to operate till the disposal of the execution case.

e) If the petitioner-Judgment Debtor fails to proceed with the matter before the Executing Court and seeks for adjournment, the interim order granted by this Court shall stand vacated.

In view of disposal of writ petition, all pending I.As., if any, are disposed of accordingly. "

(b) The petitioner then files an application before the concerned Court under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the compromise entered into was a fraud or out of coercion and therefore, the compromise order of the year 2022 should be recalled, having filed the said application three years after the compromise.

4. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice the compromise entered into between the parties reads as follows:

5. Noticing the said compromise, the concerned Court directs drawing up of a decree as the compromise was posted before the Lok Adalat and settled before the Lok Adalat. The decree so directed to be drawn is as under:

“INSTITUTED COM. O.S. ON: 22.10.2021

CLAIM: The Plaintiff prays for a Judgment and Decree in his favour and against the Defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,36,33,593-00 from the Defendant No.1 with interest at 2% per month, from the date of the suit and till realization of the amount, in the end of justice and equity.

This Commercial suit is coming for final disposal on the 12^th day of March 2022 before Lok Adalath, before Smt. Shubha Gowdar, B.A., LL.B., Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Judicial Conciliator, Chikkamagaluru and Sri. K.H. Mallikarjuna, Advocate Conciliator, Chikkamagaluru in the presence of Sri. C.K. Jagadeesha Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 is C. Nagaraju and Defendant No.2 is dismissed.

This case is compromised before Lok-