THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER DATED 13.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LOK ADALATH/ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI AND THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 16.09.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI IN OS NO.212/2025 VIDE ANNEXURES-G AND H, RESPECTIVELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B) PASS SUCH ORDER OR ORDERS WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND NECESSARY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the compromise decree dated 13.09.2025 passed in the Lok Adalath/Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, in O.S. No.212/2025, produced at Annexures-G and H.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

3. Respondent No.2, being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, executed a registered sale agreement in favour of the petitioner on 05.10.2013. As Respondent No.2 failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.148/2015 against respondent No.2. The said suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 30.10.2019.

4. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 preferred an appeal in RFA No.100577/2019. During the pendency of the said appeal, respondent No.1 filed a collusive suit in O.S. No.143/2021 for partition and separate possession against respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner filed I.A. No.2 seeking impleadment, which came to be allowed by order dated 30.06.2022. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed I.A. No.3 seeking withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The said application was partly allowed by order dated 07.09.2023, permitting withdrawal of the suit without liberty to file a fresh suit.

5. Subsequently, the wife of respondent No.2 filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC in E.P. No.22/2025 objecting to the decree passed in O.S. No.148/2015, as confirmed in RFA No.100577/2019. The said application came to be rejected by the executing court. Thereafter, respondent No.1 again filed a suit in O.S. No.212/2025 for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the parties filed a compromise petition, and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath, where a compromise decree came to be passed. Hence, this present writ petition.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents, having suffered a decree for specific performance in O.S. No.148/2015, which was confirmed in RFA No.100577/2019, have initiated multiple proceedings to defeat the rights of the petitioner. He further submits that after withdrawal of O.S. No.143/2021 without liberty, filing of the subsequent suit in O.S. No.212/2025 and obtaining a compromise decree behind the back of the petitioner amounts to fraud and collusion. Accordingly, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned compromise decree and submits that there is no bar to file a suit for partition and separate possession until the property is partitioned by metes and bounds. Hence, on these grounds he prays for dismissal of the petition.

9. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

10. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had filed O.S. No.148/2015 for specific performance, which was decreed on 30.10.2019 and which was confirmed in RFA No.100577/2019. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 filed O.S. No.143/2021 for partition, which was subsequently withdrawn without