- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5559 WP No. 18325 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18325 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT.NANJAMMA W/O SRI H.LANKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDNG AT NO.191, 7TH A MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SATISH M.DODDAMANI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.MANGALAGOWRI D/O BOGASIDDAIAH, W/O SRI.SUNDAREGOWDA, AGE IN MAJOR, R/AT NO.54, "ANUGRAHA", 3RD CROSS, GAVIPURAM, M.C.SEETHARAMAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 019 2. SACHHIDANANDANAGAR GIRINAGAR (VHBC), RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION(REGD.) NO.34, RAMAKRISHNA GARDEN, GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 085 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI V.R.ASHOK KUMAR, AGE MAJOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.THONTADHARYA R.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5559 WP No. 18325 of 2019 SRI.D.VENUGAPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:15.4.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.29 IN O.S.NO.6623/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU [CCH-27] VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.29. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.29 in O.S No.6623/2010 dated 15.04.2019 by the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The petitioner herein had filed a suit seeking declaration that the judgment and decree obtained by the defendant in O.S.No.10086/1996 is null and void and to be declared as nullity and also a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in respect of the scheduled agricultural land and is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same and also sought for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering, dispossessing or taking forcible possession of plaintiff’s lawful possession of the schedule immovable - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5559 WP No. 18325 of 2019 property. In the suit both the plaintiffs and the defendants have filed the compromise petition i.e., I.A No.29 that came to be dismissed by the trial Court by way of this impugned order. The trial Court had observed that the earlier suit for specific performance that is filed by the defendant in the present suit was decreed on 14.09.2000 and thereafter the present suit came to be filed to declare that the said judgment and decree is a nullity on 18.09.2010 after lapse of almost 10 years. 3. The trial Court further observed that a person who suffered a judgment and decree, if he is aggrieved by the same, he has to file an appeal under Section 96 of CPC to the Appellate Court and no provision in CPC provides to file a suit for declaration to declare the judgment and decree as null and void and to be rendered as nullity and that too after the lapse of almost 10 years. Filing a suit to declare the judgment and decree passed by the Court of law as nullity, is in order to circumvent the judgment and decree suffered by the party and bye-passing the procedure established by law is not correct and in such a suit entering a compromise to nullify the judgment and decree passed by the Court of law cannot be permitted in the light of the Section 23 of Indian Contract Act and also the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5559 WP No. 18325 of 2019 court has referred to Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. The trial Court has observed that the suit itself is not maintainable, the compromise entered by the parties to bye-pass the procedure also cannot be permitted. If the said compromise is permitted, then it will be opposed to the public policy and accordingly dismissed the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that if the court is of view that if such compromise petition is not maintainable, the trial Court ought to have dismissed. But the observation of the trial Court, that it is opposed to the public policy, such an observation is unwarranted and contrary to the facts of the case. It is submitted that though the application is dismissed, parties have compromised the matter and the said compromise is already acted upon by both the parties. 5.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ defendant also submits that they have acted on the said compromise. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The order impugned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5559 WP No. 18325 of 2019 passed by the court where the trial court had dismissed the I.A that is filed seeking to compromise the matter is perfectly legal and valid. The party who is a party to the earlier suit cannot file another suit after lapse of 10 years saying that the declaration of the said judgment and decree is null and void and when the suit itself is not maintainable, filing a compromise petition in the said suit and recording the same will not arise, on this aspect the order of the trial court is perfectly legal and valid. Then coming to the observation that it is opposed to public policy as far as that observation is concerned the order needs to be modified. It is submitted by both the counsels that they have already acted upon the compromise which was rejected by the Court. If the parties have acted upon the compromise, it is at their wish. In that view the matter order of the trial Court is affirmed but the observation that “it is opposed to public policy” is set aside. Accordingly, this court is passing the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5559 WP No. 18325 of 2019 ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed off and the order is modified by deleting the observations that the compromises is “opposed to public policy”. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1