ORDER

The petitioners are impugning the award dated 11.03.2017 passed in OS No.7865 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, before Lok Adalath and decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise petition.

2. Heard Smt A L Saritha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N R Naik, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially the suit OS No.281 of 2014 was filed for partition and separate possession. The petitioners and the respondents herein are parties to the suit and the same is pending consideration. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendancy of OS No.281 of 2014, by suppressing the said fact, respondent No.1 filed the suit OS No.7865 of 2016 again seeking partition and separate possession against respondent No.2 herein. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the son and the father and they are the plaintiff and defendant in OS No.7865 of 2016. Immediately after filing of the suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered into compromise and settled the dispute before Lok Adalat and accordingly, an award was passed on 11.03.2017 behind the back of other parties in OS No.281 of 2014. Taking advantage of the said award, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in OS No.281 of 2014 and therefore, an application was filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the compromise decree and till then stay the compromise decree as the same was obtained suppressing the materials facts, in collusion with one another.

4. Learned counsel submitted that considering the contention taken by the parties and after being satisfied prima facie that a collusive compromise decree was obtained by the respondents, the Trial Court proceeded to pass orders on IA.VI staying the operation and execution of the compromise decree dated 11.03.2017 passed in OS No.7865 of 2016. However, the said order was challenged before this Court by respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.14369 of 2020. The said writ petition came to be allowed by setting aside the order of stay granted on IA.VI. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court categorically observed that the remedy for the petitioner - respondent No.2 herein is to approach the writ court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India basing on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and another Vs Jalour Singh and Others1. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking to set aside the impugned award dated 11.03.2017 passed in OS No.7865 of 2016. Accordingly, she prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the petition submitted that respondent No.1 filed the suit OS No.7865 of 2016 against respondent No.2 and during the pendancy of the suit, both of them came to terms and compromised the dispute before Lok Adalat. Even though, the award was passed during 2017, the petitioners are seeking to set aside the same by filing the present petition in the year 2022. There is inordinate delay in seeking the relief and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that as on today, respondent No.2 is not a party in OS No.281 of 2014 and thus, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in the present petition. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. The contention of the parties when considered in the light of the materials on record, admittedly OS No.281 of 2014 was filed by one Pujavenkataiah and others against respondent No.2 herein who is defendant No.4 therein and others seeking partition and separate possession of two items of properties described in the schedule. Admittedly, the suit is still pending for consideration. In the meantime, respondent No.1 herein being the son of respondent No.2 filed the suit OS No.7865 of 2016 again seeking partitio