IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 12978 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

NEW CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LIMITED, PRESTIGE ROYAL WOODS, KISMATPUR, RAJENDRA NAGAR, MANDAL, HYDERABAD, RR DISTRICT-500 086, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY J N AND AJAY J NANDALIKE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NATIONAL INTERIORS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.23, (OLD NO 10/A)

GROUND FLOOR, 7^TH CROSS, PAPANNA BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR.

2. AATHMALAKSHMI TRADERS NO.274/9, NEW GUDDAHAHALLI, N.T.Y.LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. IRISHAD AHMED B M.,ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF COM.O.S.101/2019 WHICH HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF IN TERMS OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION RECORDED IN THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (LOK ADALATH) AT BANGALORE SET ASIDE THE COMPROMISE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN COM O.S.101/2019, RECORDED IN THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (LOK ADALATH) AT BANGALORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-AINSERTED AS PER ORDER DTD 31.08.2023.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-83) in Com.O.S.No. 101/2019 [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"]. By the Impugned Order, a challenge to a suit which was filed for recovery of money by the respondent No.1, was decreed along with interest in terms of a Compromise Petition as settled before the Lok Adalat, was repelled.

2. This Court, had, on 19.01.2026, passed the following order:

"1. On the last date of hearing, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the learned counsel for petitioner. On that day, the Court had passed the following direction:

"The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sri.Ajay J. Nandalike is in a medical emergency and requests for an adjournment.

The learned counsel for the respondent fairly does not oppose the request.

The record reflects that an interim order staying the execution proceedings was granted on 30.11.2020. Given the fact that the stay has been pending for last six years, the petitioner is granted a final opportunity to argue the matter.

The parties at liberty to file their written submissions in a brief note of contentions in the matter, not exceeding three pages, along with judgments in support thereof.

List on 19.01.2026. "

2. The order dated 05.01.2026 has not been complied with by either party.

3. Today, the learned counsel for respondents seeks an adjournment on account of the arguing counsel being unwell.

4. It seems clear that neither party is interested in prosecuting the matter.

5. Let the authorized signatory of both the petitioner as well as the respondents be present in the Court on the next date of hearing.

6. List this matter on 16.02.2026.

7. Interim order granted on 30.11.2020 is extended till the next date of hearing."

3. The learned counsels for the respondents appeared today along with the respondents before the Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contends that the compromise decree was obtained fraudulently and hence he has challenged this before the Court.

5. The principal ground of challenge before the Court is that the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are ‘hand- in-glove' with each other and are attempting to extort money from the petitioner/defendant and that the compromise was obtained by fraud.

5.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant further submits that because the respondent No.2 who has c