Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sri Shivarudrappa and Sri S. Somashekar, were defendants No.1 and 3 in O.S.No.24/2011, a suit for partition filed by the respondent, Sri S. Madesh, who is the brother of the petitioners. The suit was decreed by way of a compromise on 24.01.2012 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kollegal. The petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 24.01.2012 on I.A.No.VII filed under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC and to set aside the compromise decree. The petitioners alleged that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioners had not produced any evidence to support their allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. The court noted that the application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was filed to set aside abatement, but the suit had already been disposed of by compromise, and no abatement had occurred. The court also observed that the challenge to the compromise decree was highly belated, as the decree was passed in 2012 and the petition was filed in 2025, with no explanation for the delay. The court held that the petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it, confirming the compromise decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Setting Aside - Fraud and Misrepresentation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXII Rule 3, Order XXIII Rule 3 - The petitioners, defendants in a suit for partition, challenged a compromise decree alleging fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent-plaintiff. The court held that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, and the application under Order XXII Rule 3 was not maintainable as the suit had already been disposed of by compromise. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. (Paras 1-5)
B) Civil Procedure - Abatement - Setting Aside Abatement - Order XXII Rule 3 CPC - The petitioners filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC to set aside abatement, but the court noted that the suit had already been compromised and decreed, and no abatement had occurred. The application was misconceived and not maintainable. (Paras 2-4)
C) Limitation - Challenge to Compromise Decree - Delay and Laches - The compromise decree was passed in 2012, and the petition was filed in 2025, after a delay of 13 years. The petitioners offered no explanation for the delay, and the court held that the challenge was barred by laches. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compromise decree dated 24.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.24/2011 is liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, and whether the application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was maintainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 24.01.2012 on I.A.No.VII and the compromise decree dated 24.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.24/2011 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Compromise decree
- setting aside
- fraud
- misrepresentation
- Order XXII Rule 3 CPC
- limitation
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (12) 35
WP No. 34574 of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur
Sri. Karunakara P. (for petitioners)
Sri Shivarudrappa and Sri S. Somashekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging an order on I.A.No.VII under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC and a compromise decree in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (defendants in the suit) sought to set aside the order dated 24.01.2012 on I.A.No.VII and the compromise decree dated 24.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.24/2011.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent (plaintiff in the suit).
Previous Decisions
The suit O.S.No.24/2011 was decreed by compromise on 24.01.2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kollegal.
Issues
Whether the compromise decree dated 24.01.2012 is liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation?
Whether the application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was maintainable after the suit was disposed of by compromise?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent.
Petitioners contended that the application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was filed to set aside abatement, but the court erred in not considering it.
Ratio Decidendi
A compromise decree can only be set aside on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, which must be proved by the party challenging it. The petitioners failed to produce any evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. Further, an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC is not maintainable after the suit has been disposed of by compromise, as no abatement occurs. The challenge was also barred by laches due to the 13-year delay.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is filed by the petitioners who were defendants Nos.1 and 3 challenging the order dated 24.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.24/2011 on I.A.No.VII filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC and to set aside the compromise decree dated 24.01.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kollegal taluk, Chamarajanagar district.
It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 is none other than the brother of the petitioners initiated a suit for partition and the suit was decreed by way of compromise.
The petitioners have not produced any material to show that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
The application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was filed to set aside abatement, but the suit had already been disposed of by compromise, and no abatement had occurred.
The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Procedural History
The respondent filed O.S.No.24/2011 for partition before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kollegal. The suit was decreed by compromise on 24.01.2012. The petitioners (defendants No.1 and 3) filed I.A.No.VII under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC to set aside abatement, which was dismissed by the trial court on 24.01.2012. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on an unspecified date in 2025, challenging the order on I.A.No.VII and the compromise decree.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXII Rule 3, Order XXIII Rule 3
- Constitution of India: Article 227
