- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8452 WP No. 102584 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 102584 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SANJU S/O. SHIVPPA HEBBAL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLOLI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591224. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MERAJABI W/O. BASHIRASAB CHINAGI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD, R/O KALLOLI, MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591224. 2. AMEER S/O. BASHIRASAB CHINAGI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KALLOLI, MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591224. 3. RASHIDA W/O. MUNNA BHAGAWAN, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD, R/O KALLOLI, MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591224. 4. MEERASAB S/O. BASHIRASAB CHINAGI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KALLOLI, MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591224. 5. NAZAMEEN W/O. AMEER CHINAGI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD, R/O KALLOLI, MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591224. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.14 12:35:57 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8452 WP No. 102584 of 2025 6. SAHIL S/O. AMEER CHINAGI, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KALLOLI, MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591224. 7. RUBBINA MEERASAB CHINAGI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD, R/O KALLOLI, MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591224. 8. MAHADEV S/O. SHIVAPPA MADABHAVI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KALLOLI, MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591224. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03-02-2023 PASSED ON I.A. BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC GOKAK IN O.S. NO.506/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents as the respondents were not served with a notice when the impugned order came to be passed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8452 WP No. 102584 of 2025 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, being the owners of the property bearing R.S. No. 250, measuring 11 guntas out of a total of 36 guntas, situated within the village limits of Kalloli, Taluk Mudhol, District Gokak, executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to this agreement, an 11E sketch was prepared. However, as the respondents/owners failed to come forward to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, he was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No. 193/2022. Prior to filing the suit, the petitioner had also issued a legal notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. 4. It is the case of petitioner that in the meanwhile prior to the suit being filed for specific performance by the petitioner, respondent No.8 filed suit against respondent Nos.1 to 7 in O.S.No.506/2023 on 20.09.2022. Notices were issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 7 on 21.09.2022. The matter was listed for appearance of the parties on 29.10.2022. The case was advanced to 26.09.2022 and on the same day, all the parties appeared and filed a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8452 WP No. 102584 of 2025 compromise petition wherein defendants agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.8 in O.S.No.506/2023. In view of the compromise decree entered into in O.S. No. 506/2022, the petitioner being directly aggrieved by the said compromise decree, which affects his rights as he is in possession of the property in question to the extent of 18 guntas filed an application before the Trial Court at Gokak in O.S. No. 506/2022. This application was filed after disposal of the suit on 26.09.2022, under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking recall of the compromise order. However, the petitioner’s application came to be dismissed without issuance of notice to the respondents. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court ought to have issued notice and considered the fact that there is no appellate remedy available to the petitioner against a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8452 WP No. 102584 of 2025 compromise entered into by respondent Nos.1 to 8 amongst themselves, without impleading the petitioner and that the said compromise directly affects the right already vested with the petitioner by way of a registered sale agreement, which is already sought for by the petitioner on the basis of the suit filed by the petitioner seeking specific performance of contract against the original owners i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 7 in O.S.No.193/2022. 6. This Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the respondents at this stage, as no notice was issued to them when the petitioner’s application came to be dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioner is directly affected by the compromise decree entered into by respondent Nos.1 to 8 amongst themselves. Since the suit is already filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.193/2022 against the original owners seeking specific performance of contract, it would be in the interest of all the parties - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8452 WP No. 102584 of 2025 that the petitioner’s application be decided on merits by the trial Court after issuing notice to the respondents. 7. The same has not been performed by the trial Court and merely dismissed the application without even issuing any notice. The trial Court ought to have considered and passed suitable orders after hearing the parties, either by issuing notice or, if deemed fit, even prior to issuing notice upon satisfying itself regarding prima facie case. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi in O.S.No.506/2022 is set aside. iii. The trial Court shall re-consider the application filed by the petitioner by issuing notice, in accordance with law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8452 WP No. 102584 of 2025 iv. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20