Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
SHRI. V. SUNIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
M/S. OMKAR AGENCIES – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner is the defendant no.2 challenging a compromise order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the burden of proof for fraud lies with the petitioner, who did not lead evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. previous dismissals of similar applications apply as res judicata. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. the writ petition is dismissed with costs. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that without instructions to the plaintiff, the advocate had stated before the Trial Court that he has no instructions. As such, the order impugned needs to be set aside.
6. When an application is filed seeking to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the same is obtained by playing fraud, the party, who pleads fraud, has to prove the same by adducing necessary evidence. In this case, the counsel for the defendant No.2, as per the order of the Trial Court, has refused to lead evidence. The submission of the learned counsel that without instructions the advocate has acted cannot be taken into consideration. If the advocate had acted contrary to the instructions o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
