Anand Byrareddy, J.—The facts of the case are stated to be as follows:

2. It is the petitioner’s case that she is the plaintiff in suit filed against respondents 1 to 3 herein, in as No. 2289 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bangalore Rural District. The suit is for specific performance of contract in respect of an agreement to sell dated 13.7.2006. It is alleged that in order to deprive her of the property, respondents 1 to 3 had colluded with respondent 4 and a suit was said to have been filed, subsequent to the suit of the petitioner, in OS No. 2289 of 2007 by respondent 4 against respondents 1 to 3, seeking specific performance of .contract in respect of the same property, which is the subject-matter of the petitioner’s suit, under an agreement purported to have been executed on 20.1.2006. It is stated that the respondents had suppressed the fact of the pendency of the petitioner’s suit and had entered into a compromise in the later suit, to which the petitioner was not a party and it is learnt by the petitioner in retrospect that a compromise decree has also been drawn up in the later suit, as on 20.6.2008.

It is in the above background th