- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3304 WP No. 101629 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 101629 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. APPASAHEB YALLAPPA SHEGUNASHI AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317. 2. SHRI. YALLAPPA APPASAHEB SHEGUNASHI AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317. 3. SHRI. IRAPPA APPASAHEB SHEGUNASHI AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317. 4. SMT. MEENAXI W/O RAMAGOUDA PATIL AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRI, HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GOKAK, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591217. 5. SMT. KASTURI W/O APPASAHEB SHEGUNASHI AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRI, HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANGAMESH S. GHULAPPANAVAR, ADV.) AND: 1. SHRI PARAPPA BHIMAGOUDA KHETGOUDAR AGE.51 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKOD, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADV) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.03.01 11:11:59 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3304 WP No. 101629 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPROMISE DECREE DATED 12-09-2015 IN O.S. NO. 173/2015 ON THE FILE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG, VIDE ANNEXURE - C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the compromise decree dated 12.09.2015 passed in O.S. No.173/2015, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioners were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff. The respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.173/2015 against the petitioners for the relief of the specific performance of a contract. In the said suit, the petitioners appeared. Thereafter, the parties have filed a compromise petition marked as Annexure-B, reporting that they intended to settled the matter on the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3304 WP No. 101629 of 2022 terms and conditions of the said compromise petition and prayed to refer the matter to the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the trial Court referred the matter to the Lok Adalat. The parties appeared before the Lok Adalat, and the Lok Adalat accepted the compromise petition and passed a compromise decree as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, the petitioners did not comply with the terms and conditions. The respondent filed an execution petition in E.P. No.15/2017 on 17.03.2017. The Executing Court issued notice to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared before the executing Court and thereafter filed this writ petition, challenging the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S. No.173/2015. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has played fraud on the petitioners and did not pay the additional consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. He submits that the compromise decree - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3304 WP No. 101629 of 2022 drawn by the Lok Adalat is without jurisdiction. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He further submits that, the respondent filed an execution petition in 2017 and the petitioners appeared before the Executing Court on 19.08.2017. The petitioners knowing fully well that a compromise decree was passed by the Lok Adalat, kept quite for more than six years. Thereafter, the petitioners filed this writ petition. He further submits that the petitioners have not explained the delay in filing the writ petition. However, the respondent is present before the Court. On instructions, he submits that in addition to what has been paid in terms of the compromise petition, the respondent is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- within one month. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3304 WP No. 101629 of 2022 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioners have agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration, to the respondent. The petitioners did not comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in the sale agreement. The respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.173/2015 for the relief of the specific performance of a contract. In the said suit, the petitioners appeared through the counsel and thereafter the parties filed a compromise petition before the Court and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The parties along with their respective counsel appeared before the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat. The Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat read over and explained the contents of the compromise petition to the parties. The parties having understood the contents of the compromise petition, the Presiding Officer accepted the compromise petition and passed the compromise decree. It is the grievance of the petitioners - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3304 WP No. 101629 of 2022 that the respondent has not paid the additional consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. 8. A perusal of the compromise petition discloses that the respondent has paid an additional consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. If the respondent had not paid the additional consideration amount at the time of passing the decree by the Lok Adalat, the petitioners could have challenged the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat. The petitioners did not comply with the directions issued in the compromise decree. The respondent filed an execution petition in E.P. No.15/2017. The Executing Court issued notice to the petitioners. The petitioners appeared through counsel on 19.08.2017. From 19.08.2017, the execution petition was adjourned on one or the other grounds. The respondent filed an application on 19.07.2019 for the appointment of a Commissioner for the execution of a registered sale deed as per the decree passed in O.S. No.173/2015. The petitioners did not oppose the said application. The Executing Court has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3304 WP No. 101629 of 2022 allowed the application and appointed a Shirestedar as a Commissioner to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent on behalf of the petitioners about the suit land bearing R.S. No.14/2A measuring 1 acre 11 guntas and R.S. No.14/3 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas situated on southern side at Mugalkhod Village. Even after passing of an order on the said application, the petitioners did not challenge the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat. The Court Commissioner executed a registered sale deed on 07.01.2022. After executing a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent, the petitioners filed this writ petition on 08.04.2022. 9. From the perusal of the memorandum of the writ petition, it can be seen that, the petitioners have not explained the delay in filing the writ petition. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held which reads as follows: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3304 WP No. 101629 of 2022 “17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons who compete with "Kumbhakarna" or for that matter "Rip Van Winkle". In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold. 18. Having dealt with the doctrine of delay and laches, we shall presently proceed to deal with the doctrine of proportionality which has been taken recourse to by the High Court regard being had to the obtaining factual 9 matrix. We think it appropriate to refer to some of the authorities which have been placed reliance upon by the High Court.” - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3304 WP No. 101629 of 2022 10. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. The respondent has undertaken to pay an additional amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh only) within one month from today. The respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- before the trial Court within one month, failing which, the petitioners are entitled to interest on the said amount @ 12% per annum from the date of expiry of one month till the realization of the amount. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB