- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 27559 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. G. KARIYAMMA, W/O. LATE NARASAPPA, D/O. GOVINDAPPA @ DODDAGOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/OF HULLEHALLY, BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GNANESHA N I., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS, R2 TO R4 ARE LR'S AS PER ORDER DATED 05.11.2025. 2. SRI. THIMMAPPA, S/O. LATE DODDA GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/OF JODIBOKIERE VILLAGE, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. 3. SRI. RAJAPPA, S/O. LATE DODDA GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/OF SRI LAXMINARAYANA FLOOR MILL, CHIKKINGALA VILLAGE AND POST, BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548. 4. SRI. CHANDRAPPA, S/O. LATE DODDA GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/OF JODIBOKIERE VILLAGE, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; SRI.P.N.HARISH., ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O/D 05.11.2025 R2 TO R4 AS LR'S OF DECEASED R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 13.07.2023 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL JMFC TARIKERE IN OS NO.71/2012 ON IA NO.7 PRODUCED AT ANNX-G AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER This writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 13.07.2023 passed on I.A.No.7 in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 O.S.No.71/2012 by the Court of Civil Judge and Additional, JMFC, Tarikere. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition narrated briefly are that a suit in O.S.No.71/2012 was filed before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Tarikere by respondent No.2 herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession, claiming 1/4th share in suit schedule properties. It appears that parties to the suit had settled their interse dispute in O.S.No.71/2012 and therefore the parties to the suit were referred to the Lok Adalath and based on the compromise petition which was filed on behalf of the parties in O.S.No.71/2012, the Lok Adalath disposed of O.S.No.71/2012 in terms of the compromise reported before it by the parties. It appears that accordingly an award was drawn before the Lok Adalath on 21.05.2012 and subsequently, a final decree was drawn by the Trial Court on 04.01.2013. I.A.No.7 was filed on behalf of the petitioner herein in O.S.No.71/2012 with a prayer to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 declare the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.71/2012 as Void ab initio.. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has held that the said application is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in this petition submits that petitioner is not a party to the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.71/2012. Therefore, Trial Court was not justified in rejecting I.A.No.7. He submits that petitioner has got a good case on merits and the parties to the suit, in the absence of the petitioner who has got a right over the suit schedule property have clandestinely entered into a settlement, based on which the suit has been decreed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submit that petitioner is not a party to the suit and he is not a signatory to the compromise petition based on which a compromise decree has been passed in O.S.No.71/2012. The Trial Court having - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 appreciated this aspect of the matter, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Batchu Subba Lakshmi and others Vs. Sannidhi Srinivasulu and others reported in (2009) SCC Online AP 795 has observed that petitioner has a remedy either to prefer a writ petition challenging the award of the Lok Adalath or to file a fresh suit seeking appropriate remedy before the Civil Court. They submit that though the bar under Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 or the bar under Order 23 Rule 3A would not be applicable to the petitioner, since disputed questions of facts would arise, including the right of the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property, the proper remedy to the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that petitioner is not a party in O.S.No.71/2012 and parties to the suit in O.S.No.71/2012 appears to have settled their interse - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 dispute in respect of the suit schedule property and based on the settlement reported by the parties in writing by filing a compromise petition, the Lok Adalat had disposed of the suit in O.S.No.71/2012 in terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties to the suit. 7. According to the petitioner, she is entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties and without making her as a party to the suit, based on the interse settlement reported by the parties to the suit, a compromise decree has been passed. Section 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 reads as follows: "Section 21: Award of Lok Adalat.—[(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section(1) of section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).] - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award." 8. A reading of Section 21(2) would go to show that every award passed by the Lok Adalath shall be final and binding only on all the parties to the dispute and since the petitioner is not a party to the dispute, Section 21(2) will not be applicable to her. Order 23 Rule 3 provides for compromise of suit and Order 23 Rule 3A provides that no fresh suit shall be maintainable to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not passed. Even the bar provided under Rule 3A would not be applicable to the petitioner, because she is not a party to the compromise petition based on which suit in O.S.No.71/2012 was decreed. 9. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Batchu Subba Lakshmi (supra) in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 has observed as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 "7. Under section 21(1) of the Act an award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be decree of a Civil Court and under Section 21(2) of the Act every award made by Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties. No appeal shall lie to any Court against the award, and therefore, ordinarily a writ petition challenging award is also barred. But there may be situations where there being no compromise or settlement as envisaged under Section 20(3) and (5) of the Act, Lok Adalat may have passed an award. In other words, what would be the position if Lok Adalat passes an order even without parties arriving at a compromise or settlement among themselves. In such a situation, it cannot be said that there is an award of Lok Adalat, which can be enforced by a Civil Court as a decree. There may be yet another situation where in the absence of the parties to the lis or in the absence of one of the parties to the lis, award of Lok Adalat may have been obtained by impersonation, misrepresentation or fraud. Even in such cases, there being no valid award, Section 21(1) of the Act is not attracted. Having regard to the language of Article 226(1) of Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court of a State to issue writs, orders or directions against any public authority or against authorities discharging public functions, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against an award of Lok Adalat. The phrase “for any - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 other purpose” appearing in Article 226(1) of Constitution, in our opinion, is broad enough to take within its purview the situations where a statute contains “no Certiorari clause”. It is well settled that “no Certiorari clause” in a statute does not bar the Constitutional Court from entertaining a petition for redressal of grievance and issue an appropriate order ex debito justitiae. Therefore, in either of the situations or any such other situations, a writ petition would lie. 8. The parties to the compromise or settlement, which is the basis for award of Lok Adalat, no doubt entitled to challenge the award on any of the grounds referred to herein above grounds. Ordinarily, a third party cannot challenge the award in a writ petition even if such award causes prejudice. The remedy of such party would be to institute a separate suit or proceeding for necessary redressal and seek appropriate decree of declaration by filing a suit within the period of limitation prescribed under law. Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, any person entitled to legal character or any right as to any property, may file a suit for declaration. Under this provision, any person can even institute a suit for declaration that the decree passed by Civil Court in an earlier suit is not binding on him. When a civil Court can even declare that an earlier decree of the Court is not binding on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 the party before it, we do not see any objection for a third party to institute a suit in a civil Court seeking a declaration that the award of Lok Adalat is not binding on him/her subject to the law of limitation. We however hasten to add that there may be extraordinary cases where a third party is meted with injustice at the behest of two or more conniving and colluding parties, who may have obtained an award of Lok Adalat by fraud or misrepresentation only to defeat the rights of such third party. In such cases within a reasonable period such third party may maintain a writ petition. But in such cases, there should be prima facie evidence of fraud or misrepresentation or collusion in obtaining the award of Lok Adalat. Even if such allegations are made and the question involves complicated questions of fact requiring voluminous evidence, third party should be left to seek remedy in a civil Court rather than preferring extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of Constitution." 10. In the present case, according to the petitioner, fraud has been played by the parties to the suit and by misrepresentation and collusion they have obtained an award before the Lok Adalath and thereafter, a compromise decree has been passed in O.S.No.71/2012. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45980 WP No. 27559 of 2023 As observed in the case of Batchu Subba Lakshmi (supra) when disputed and complicated questions of facts would arise between the parties and in a writ petition filed under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be adjudicated, the proper remedy to the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court by filing a fresh Suit. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting I.A.No.7 filed on behalf of the petitioner in O.S.No.71/2012. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before the proper forum. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21