The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following relief:

TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 26.07.2014

PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

HUBBALLI

(LOK

ADALAT)

IN

O.S.NO.246/2014

ANNEXURE-"A"

THE

COMPROMISE

PETITION

DATED:26.07.2014

CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE O.S.NO. 246/2014 ON THE FILE

OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBBALLI FOR FRESH

CONSIDERATION ON MERITS.

The grievance of the petitioner is that a compromise

petition was entered into in O.S. No.246/2014

pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge

at Hubballi in the Lok-Adalat proceedings by a person

claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the

- 3 -

petitioner and as such the petitioner’s interest in the

suit

schedule

property

therein

has

been

compromised without the knowledge of the petitioner

and therefore a fraud has been committed on the

petitioner by resorting to an abuse of the process of

the Court and filing of a compromise petition in the

Lok-Adalat.

3.

Sri.Mahesh

Wodeyar,

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner submits that the suit in O.S. No.246/2014

had been filed by respondent No.2 herein against the

petitioner represented by the power of attorney

holder seeking for specific performance of an alleged

agreement of sale dated 25.04.2014 which is alleged

to have been executed by the alleged power of

attorney holder of the petitioner.

4.

In the said suit upon notice being ordered without

service of notice on the petitioner, respondent No.1

who claims to be the power of attorney holder of the

petitioner had entered appearance and filed a

- 4 -

compromise petition even before return of notice.

The compromise petition having been filed before the

Court, the matter was referred to the Lok-Adalat and

in that Lok-Adalat a compromise was recorded by the

conciliators and compromise decree was directed to

be passed.

5.

Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar submits that once earlier a

power of attorney which had been issued in favour of

the father of respondent No.1 as regards the said

properties had been cancelled by a public notice

dated 15.12.2012 published in the newspaper

Sanjevani on 16^th December, 2012.

6.

The petitioner not having executed any power of

attorney in favour of respondent No.1, the power of

attorney claimed by respondent No.1 is fabricated

one and as such neither the agreement of sale could

be executed by respondent No.1 in favour of

respondent No.2 nor could a compromise be entered

into by the respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 for

- 5 -

the Lok-Adalat to record. In the above background,

he submits that the petition needs to be allowed and

the compromise recorded by the Lok-Adalat be set

aside as also the compromise decree drawn up in

pursuance thereto.

7.

Per contra, Sri.Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior

counsel appearing for the respondents would submit

that respondent No.1 is the power of attorney holder

of the petitioner and respondent No.1 has entered

into a compromise with the knowledge and consent

of

the

petitioner

with

respondent

No.2.

The

compromise having been filed before the Court and

the Court having forwarded the matter to the Lok-

Adalat the compromise is one which is filed before

the Court and as such the present petition is not

maintainable since the trial Court having taken the

compromise on record, only a suit challenging the

compromise is maintainable.

- 6 -

8.

He further submits that the alleged fabricated power

of attorney has not been produced by the petitioner.

Therefore the contention of the petitioner that there

is fabrication of the power of attorney is not

sustainable without production of such power of

attorney. There is gross delay by the petitioner in

challenging the compromise by filing of the above

petition inasmuch as the compromise was entered

into in the year 2014 and the present writ petition

has been filed in the year 2018 and as such the

petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.

Further he submits that respondent No.2 has acted

on

the

compromise

and

entered

into

further

transaction which woul