IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

WRIT PETITION NO. 5501 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

GURUMURTHY

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

S/O LATE RAMANNA

GORAGONDANAHALLI

KASABA HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK

TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. SOHANI HOLLA, ADV.,)

AND:

1. G. THEERTHAKUMAR

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

S/O GURUMURTHY

GORAGONDANAHALLI

KASABA HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK

Dig itally

TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.

signed by

NANDINI M S

Location: 2. G. VANITHA

HIGH COU RT AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

OF

D/O GURUMURTHY

KARNATAKA

SALUKATTE KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK

TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SATISH S.K, ADV., FOR

SMT. JYOTHI S KEMPEGOWDA, ADV., FOR R-1;

R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 18.12.2021 (ANNX-B) PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TIPTUR IN OS 563/2021.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

ORAL ORDER

1. Defendant is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Lok Adalat in OS No.563/2021 and the order dated 11.01.2023 passed on an application filed under Section 151 of CPC in OS No.563/2021 by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Respondent No.1 herein had filed OS No.563/2021 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Tiptur seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also for mesne profits. Petitioner, who is the father of plaintiff was arrayed as defendant No.1 and his daughter was arrayed as defendant No.2 in the said suit. On 17.12.2021, a compromise petition was filed before the Trial Court in OS No.563/2021 and the Court had adjourned the matter for orders on 18.12.2021. Thereafter, on 18.12.2021, case was called before the National Lok Adalat and based on the compromise petition, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise petition. Petitioner had thereafter filed an application under Section 151 of CPC before the Trial Court in OS No.563/2021 to recall the order dated 18.12.2021 passed in OS No.563/2021 by the Lok Adalat and the said application was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 11.01.2023. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, defendant No.1, who is the father of plaintiff and defendant No.2, is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that major portion of the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner was not a signatory to the compromise petition which was filed in OS No.563/2021. The compromise petition which was prepared between the parties and the compromise petition which was filed in OS No.563/2021 are totally different. Son-in-law of the petitioner has signed the compromise petition on behalf of the petitioner, which has been acted upon by the Lok Adalat and suit has been decreed in terms of the said compromise petition. She submits that since the compromise petition was filed before the Court in OS No.563/2021, in view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Renuka vs. Sri. Ramanand and Another in WP No.103766/2018 disposed off on 31.03.2022, the matter could not have been referred to Lok Adalat for disposal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff has argued in support of the impugned orders. He submits that petitioner was very much aware of the contents of the compromise petition and he has signed the order sheet before the Lok Adalat on 18.12.2021 admitting the contents of the compromise petition. In terms of the compromise petition, for a considerable period of time, a sum of Rs.12,00