- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:48149 CRP No. 333 of 2022 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 333 OF 2022 (IO) BETWEEN: SUNDARAPPA K P SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. S MANJUNATH S/O LATE K P SUNDARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. M S SUNIL KUMAR S/O LATE K P SUNDARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.700/1, RAMANUJA ROAD B B GARDEN, 2ND MAIN ROAD KHILE MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 001 3. SMT SMITHA D/O LATE K P SUNDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A NO.4, DODDABETTAHALLI VIDYARANYAPURA POST NEAR GKVK WEST GATE BANGALORE - 560 097 (BY SRI. SUMA K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48149 CRP No. 333 of 2022 HC-KAR AND: 1. SRI. B. NATARAJ S/O LATE RI K G BASAVARAJU MAJOR D NO.9/3, GOWRI SHANKARA NILAYA PANCHAGAVI MUTT LAYOUT FORT MOHALLA MYSORE - 570 004 2. SRI B PRABHAKARA DECEASED DOES NOT HAVE AND LRS 3. SRI K M NAGESH S/O LATE SRI K P MAHADEVAPPA MAJOR R/A AGRAHARA RASTHE KUDERU SANTHE MARAHALLI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571 115 4. SRI K G PRAKASH S/O LATE SRI K GURUNAJAPPA MAJOR R/A NO.1407, THYAGARAJA ROAD 6TH CROSS, NAVAGRAHA TEMPLE STREET MYSORE - 57000 …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. GOWRAVASHREE N., ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.09.2024, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2022 PASSED ON I.A. IN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48149 CRP No. 333 of 2022 HC-KAR OS.NO.922/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. FIRST CIVIL JDUGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE IA FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Smt. Suma K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Gowravashree N., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Legal representative of the original plaintiff in O.S. No.922/1997 filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall the compromise entered into by the original plaintiff with the defendants in the said suit. 3. The application was filed by the legal representatives on 17.02.2021 after the original plaintiff died on 13.01.2020 seeking to recall the Order dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48149 CRP No. 333 of 2022 HC-KAR 03.12.1997 on the ground that property involved in the compromise is not subject matter of the suit and another property was sought to be given to the mother of the defendant which is Site No.*80 measuring 30x100 when mother of the defendant is not a party to the suit and there was no condition as to not to disturb the peaceful possession of the property belonging to the father of the revision petitioners. 4. Learned Trial Judge, by the impugned Order, dismissed the said application, taking note of the objections filed by the defendant. Said order is called in question in this revision petition. 5. Smt. Suma, learned Counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the Revision Petition, contented that compromise is illegal in view of the fact that a non-party has been given the benefit under the compromise and subject matter of the suit property is Shop No.12 measuring 15 feet x 20 feet. Correction carried out vide Court order dated 07.01.2026 Sd/- (VSNJ) Judge - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48149 CRP No. 333 of 2022 HC-KAR 6. But the compromise was not proper compromise and therefore being the legal representatives of original plaintiff is entitled to recall the said compromise and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, counsel for the respondent Ms. Gowravashree supports the impugned judgment. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of material on record, filing of an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, much after the compromise came to be entered into and suit came to be disposed off is per se not maintainable. 10. Admittedly from 03.12.1997 till 13.01.2020, father of the plaintiff did not challenge the compromise decree. Had there been any such fraud that has occurred - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48149 CRP No. 333 of 2022 HC-KAR at the time of entering into compromise, it is the father who was required to challenge the same. Long silence from 03.12.1997 till 13.01.2020 on the part of the father of the revision petitioner, shows that the compromise was legal. 11. What transpired between the parties in the suit in O.S. No.*922/1997 has been recorded and Trial Court having accepted the compromise after recording the satisfaction. 12. Thus, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff cannot maintain an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure irrespective of other contentions that are being urged by the legal representatives. 13. It is an afterthought on the part of the legal representatives of the original plaintiff to question the legality of the compromise by which the suit came to be disposed off. Correction carried out vide Court order dated 07.01.2026 Sd/- (VSNJ) Judge - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48149 CRP No. 333 of 2022 HC-KAR 14. Thus, viewed from any angle this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 15. Hence, following order: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT-SG