- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27445 WP No. 261 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 261 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI YELLAIAH S/O PARASHURAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT ANTHARASANHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 106 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARUN JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SMT. PADMAMMA S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. SRI. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDINT AT ANTHARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27445 WP No. 261 of 2025 KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.R. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J. M. F. C., TUMAKURU IN O. S. NO. 617/2010 AT ANNEXURE A AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 25.11.2024, by which, the court rejects an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC in O.S.No.617/2010. 2. Heard Sri. Varun Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Badri Vishal, learned counsel appearing - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27445 WP No. 261 of 2025 for respondent No.1, Sri. K.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 3. The facts that leads the petitioner to this Court for the present lies in a narrow compass. A compromise was entered into between the parties way back in the year 2019. A rectification is sought with regard to the terms of the compromise or the suit schedule property, as the case would be. The said rectification was accepted or acceded by the parties. A second rectification is now sought before the concerned Court by filing an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC by the plaintiff. The said suit filed for rectification under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC comes to be compromised between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 has put up his vehement opposition and therefore, the concerned Court accepting the opposition of the defendant No.3, rejects the application seeking compromise on the ground that in a compromise petition, all the parties should be present, there cannot be a partial compromise. The concerned Court has observed as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27445 WP No. 261 of 2025 "8. Heard and perused the compromise petition and objection and all the materials of the same. On perusal of the same it is evident on record that, the plaintiff filed this suit against defendants to seeking relief for rectification of sale deed with respect to suit schedule property. After service of suit summons the defendants appeared before the court through their counsel and filed their written statement by denying all the averments of the plaint and take several contentions. After that, this court has framed an issues based on pleadings and documents on booth parties. During pendency of the suit when the case was posted for further plaintiff evidence. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 have filed this present compromise petition to compromise the matter as per the contents of the compromise petition. Further, by perusing the pleadings it is very clear that, the plaintiff has filed this suit against defendant No.1 to 3. But, now the plaintiff has filed this compromise petition along with defendant No.1 and 2. Further, admittedly the plaintiff or the defendant No.1 and 2 are made the 3rd defendant as a party to the compromise petition and by perusing the compromise petition it is very clear that, only the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 are the parties and they filed the same leaving behind the 3rd defendant. 9. As per the order 23 rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code it is clear that, if parties enter intended to compromise the matter in dispute all the plaintiffs and defendants should be the parties to the compromise agreement and as per the settled preposition of law some of the parties cannot be entered into compromise the matter leaving other parties. Therefore, the compromise petition filed by the plaintiff and defendants is not at all maintainable under law. Therefore, the compromise petition filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 is deserves to be rejected. Accordingly this court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The application filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 is hereby rejected with cost of Rs.1,000/-." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27445 WP No. 261 of 2025 4. The reason rendered by the concerned Court to reject the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC is on the face of it erroneous, as it is settled principle of law that there can be a partial compromise between few of the plaintiffs and few of the defendants in a suit. The order would require reconsideration at its hands, with the law being clear. Therefore, the order runs foul of the settled principle of law and is rendered unsustainable. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru in O.S.No.617/2010 stands quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to reconsider the petition for compromise on its merit and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27445 WP No. 261 of 2025 While so doing, the concerned Court shall hear the parties, consider the objections if any and then pass necessary orders. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21