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
Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.16 in COM.O.S.No.182/2019 dated 05.06.2025 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Ballari, the petitioner/defendant No.2 is before this Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner is the defendant No.2. He filed I.A.No.16 with a prayer to recall the order of compromise dated 28.02.2023, according to them, which is vitiated by fraud and the suit has to be restored to its original stage. The Trial Court, by order impugned, had dismissed the same by observing that it is needless to state that fraud is to be proved as per Order VI Rule 4 of CPC. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an inquiry with regard to the alleged fraud purported to be played by the plaintiff in compromising the decreed ma
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
