This writ petition is filed by defendants 2 to 4 in Original

Suit No. 77 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC., Siddlaghatta (for short, hereinafter referred to as 8trial

Court9), challenging the order dated 01^st February, 2022,

dismissing IA.2.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are

that, the plaintiff has filed suit against the defendants, seeking

relief of specific performance of contract. During the pendency

of the suit, the parties to the suit have arrived at compromise

3

and they have filed compromise petition before the trial Court on

31^st July, 2015 as per Annexure-B. The said compromise

petition was accepted by the trial Court on the same day.

Thereafter, defendants have filed an application on 21^st March,

2018 before the trial Court under Order XXIII Rule 3(A) read

with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to reopen/recall the

compromise petition filed by them, contending fraud and

mischief made by the plaintiff. The said application was

countered by the plaintiff by filing objection. The trial Court,

after considering the material on record, by its order dated 01^st

February, 2022, dismissed IA.2 filed by defendants. Feeling

aggrieved by the same, defendants have preferred this writ

petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Chethan A.C., learned counsel

appearing for petitioners and Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned

counsel appearing for respondent.

4. Sri. Chethan A.C., learned counsel appearing for

petitioners contended that though the defendants have signed

compromise petition before the trial Court, however, they have

4

not received Rs.4,30,000/- as agreed by the plaintiff before the

trial Court. Therefore, he contended that the plaintiff has

committed fraud against the defendant/petitioners herein.

Therefore, he sought for recalling the order dated 31^st July, 2015

passed by the trial Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel

appearing respondent contended that the compromise petition

was executed on 31^st July, 2015 before the trial Court and

defendants were silent for nearly three years and thereafter,

they filed application on 21^st March, 2018. Therefore, he

contended that the finding recorded by the trial Court is just and

proper which does not call for any interference in this writ

petition.

6. In the light of submission made by learned counsel

appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the recitals

in the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3(A) read with

Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code at Annexure-B,

wherein, the plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of

Agreement of registered Sale Agreement dated 20^th October,

5

2014. In the said Agreement, it was stated that the total sale

consideration was fixed at Rs.6,80,000/-. On the date of

Agreement,

the

plaintiff

has

paid

Rs.2,50,000/-

to

the

defendants and further agreed to pay remaining balance of

Rs.4,30,000/-. It is also stated in the compromise petition that

the

plaintiff

has

received

the

balance

consideration

of

Rs.4,30,000/- before the Panchayathdhars and same was

recorded by the trial Court on 31^st July, 2015. In the light of the

averments in the compromise petition, I have carefully

considered the application filed by the defendant/petitioners

herein as per Annexure-E, wherein, it is stated that the

defendants have denied about the receipt of balance on 31^st

July, 2015. On perusal of paragraph 2 of the affidavit

accompanying IA.2 and taking into consideration the factual

aspects of the case that the petitioner/defendants have

approached the trial Court after 2½ years to recall the order

dated 31^st July, 2015, I am of the opinion that the trial Court

taking into consideration the entire material on record, rightly

dismissed IA.2 filed by the defendant/petitioners under Order

XXIII Rule 3(A) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure

6

Code. In this regard, it is relevant to follow the law declared by

the Hon9ble Apex Court in the case of the RUBY