- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3227 WP No. 100098 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.100098 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. DYANESHWAR SIDRAI PAWALE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. TANAJI GALLI, ALATAGA, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591219. 2. ANITHA APPAJI PATIL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWORK, R/O. NAGESH NAGAR, UCHAGAON, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591128. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: SANJAY MONAPPA GUGRETAKAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIVAJI CHOWK, ALAGATA, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591219. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI TO PASS ORDER ON THE COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 17-08-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN R.A.NO.10/2023 AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3227 WP No. 100098 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “To issue a writ of mandamus directing the Learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi to pass order on the compromise petition dated 17-08-2024 vide Annexure-B in R.A.No.10/2023 as expeditiously as possible in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The grievances of the petitioners and respondent is that a compromise petition having been filed on 30.08.2024, is yet to be considered by the First Appellate Court and even a memo filed to refer the matter to Lok-Adalat has been rejected. 3. A perusal of the order sheet, would indicate that a compromise petition has indeed filed on 30.08.2024, then the matter is taken up on 09.09.2024, when both the appellants and respondent were absent. On 25.09.2024, the appellants were present but, respondent was absent. On 22.10.2024, when a request for referring to the Lok- Adalat was made, the First Appellate Court rejected the same on the ground that a compromise having been already entered into, the question of referring the matter - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3227 WP No. 100098 of 2025 to a permanent Lok-Adalat, would not arise. Insofar as rejection of the joint memo is concerned, I do not find any fault therewith, since a compromise petition having been filed the matter could not be referred to Lok-Adalat. 4. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned to 09.12.2024 for hearing on the compromise petition. When on 09.12.2024, both the counsels submitted that they were acceptable for the compromise. Since all of them are agreeable to the terms the compromise, all the parties having executed the compromise petition being present before the Court, the same is required to be accepted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the trial Court however called upon the petitioners to make good the submission that petitioner No.2-sister has given up her rights in the property in favour of petitioner No.1-brother and it is for such submission that the matter is now posted on 10.03.2025. 6. When a compromise has been entered into between the parties and parties have agreed to the terms the compromise and so long as the terms are lawful, it would - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3227 WP No. 100098 of 2025 be for the Court to accept the said terms. Even if a person were giving up any right voluntarily, no roving enquiry is required to be made as regards whether such relinquishment is required to be made or not. 7. When the parties have voluntarily and categorically expressed that they have executed a compromise petition of their own free will, it would be for the Court to accept or reject the compromise petition so filed and not keep it pending. 8. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that a compromise having been filed way back on 30.08.2024 could not have been kept pending for such a long time. Hence, the trial Court is directed to consider the said compromise petition and pass necessary orders either accepting or rejecting the same at the earliest. 9. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM/-. CT-MCK. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8