- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47094 CRP No. 338 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.338 OF 2025 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.M.C. PANKAJAKSHAMMA W/O LATE P.SRINIVASALU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. SRI. S. VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE P. SRINIVASALU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. MS. S. RADHIKA D/O. LATE P. SRINIVASALU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.4-B, REGENCY PLAZZO HALL ROAD, RICHARD TOWN BENGALURU -560 005 4. SMT. P. KRISHNA KUMARI D/O LATE C. PURUSHOTHAM W/O SUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O NO.6 AND 7, 2ND FLOOR, R.K. MUTT ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 008 5. SMT. P. SASIKALA D/O LATE C. PURUSHOTHAM W/O SHANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47094 CRP No. 338 of 2025 R/O NO.177, 7TH CROSS, KADIRAPPA ROAD, DODDIGUNDA, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRADEEP NAYAK FOR SRI RISHAB D DESAI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. DR. APARNA NARASIMHA W/O DR. NARASIMHA, D/O A. HARSHAVARDHANA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.22, G-02, MOYENVILLE ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU -560 025 2. SRI. J. VENKATESH S/O LATE JAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. SMT. V. BHARATHI, W/O J. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NOS.2 AND 3 ARE R/O NO.21, 1ST FLOOR, R.K. MUTT ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU – 560 008 4. SRI LOKANATHAIAH H/O LATE P. SATHYA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, 5. SMT. CHETANA D/O LATE P. SATHYA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. NO.32, 2ND FLOOR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47094 CRP No. 338 of 2025 23RD CROSS, SRINIVAGILU MAIN ROAD, EJIPURA, BENGALURU -560047 …RESPONDENTS (BY Ms.CHANDANI.G.S FOR SRI SUBBA RAO G S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI K.A.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE F R2 AND R3; SRI CHANDAN S. MALAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2025 PASSED ON IA No.3 IN OS No.8437/2019 ON THE FILE OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE I.A No.3 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) (c), AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Respondent Nos.4 and 5 files reply to the Revision Petition. Same is placed on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Defendant Nos.3,4,5, 7 and 8 in O.S No. 8437/2019 on the file of the XLII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, are the revision petitioners challenging the Order dated 03.02.2025 passed in the said suit whereby I.A.No.3 filed by the revision petitioners under Order VII Rule 11(a), (c) and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47094 CRP No. 338 of 2025 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected and suit is ordered to be continued. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit in O.S No.8437/2019 came to be filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against the revision petitioners and other defendants with the following prayer: “(a) Partition and separate possession of 1/6th share of the Plaintiff in Suit Schedule Properties is schedule A,B,C,D,F and G. (b) Partition and separate possession of 1/4th share of the Plaintiff in Suit Schedule Properties is schedule E. (c) Declare that the judgment, decree or compromise arrived at in O.S. No.4160/2010 is not binding on the plaintiff and null and void.” 5. In the said suit, it is contented that plaintiff is not a party to the compromise arrived at in O.S.No.4160/2010 and by the said compromise, rights of the plaintiff is put to jeopardy and therefore, suit in O.S.No.8437/2019 is maintainable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47094 CRP No. 338 of 2025 6. Defendant Nos.3 to 8 appeared before the Court and filed written statement contending that suit is not maintainable in view of Order XXIII Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. An application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure also came to be filed to reject the plaint. 7. Learned Trial Judge by the impugned order dismissed the said application and continued with the suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.3 to 8 are before this Court in this revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that a separate suit challenging the compromise decree is per se not maintainable which has been not noticed by the learned Trial Judge while rejecting the application filed by the revision petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. In support of his contentions, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh vs. Anirudh Singh (dead) through legal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47094 CRP No. 338 of 2025 representatives and others reported in (2020)6 SCC 629 and contented that even a third party to a suit can only maintain an application seeking setting aside the compromise decree and not by filing a separate suit in view of the provisions under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Further, he also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others vs. Shrimanth Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3844. 12. Per contra, Ms. Chandani G.S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, supports the impugned order, so also other respondents. 13. Alternatively, plaintiff filed an application before this Court that in the event the suit is to be dismissed, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Proceudre, the plaintiff may be permitted to file necessary application in O.S.No.4160/2010 to reopen the compromise and adjudicate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47094 CRP No. 338 of 2025 the suit on merits, considering the right of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. 14. In fact, such an application is placed on record before this Court. 15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners however opposed the said application by contending that at this distance of time, said application cannot be entertained by the Court in O.S No.4160/2010. 16. Other respondents would support the revision petitioners in that regard. They also contended that, any order that would be passed by the Court should not take away the right granted to a party only on technicalities. 17. In the case on hand, plaintiff contended that plaintiff's right is affected by the compromise between the revision petitioners and other respondents in O.S No.4160/2010, which made the plaintiff to file the suit in O.S No.8437/2019. 18. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh and Shri - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47094 CRP No. 338 of 2025 Mukund Bhavan Trust supra, no separate suit is maintainable even in case of a third party. 19. When the suit in O.S No.8437/2019 came to be filed by the plaintiff, the existing law then envisaged filing a separate suit by a third party to a compromise seeking a relief that the compromise is null and void and not binding on the third party's interest. 20. Therefore, entertaining the suit by the Trial Court was just and proper. 21. However, since the lis is pending and during pendency of the lis, the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Triloki Nath Singh and Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust supra, the suit in O.S No.8437/2019 would no longer be maintainable. 22. The remedy for the plaintiff is not lost and plaintiff can very well file an application in O.S No.4160/2010 and work out her remedy in the said suit in accordance with law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47094 CRP No. 338 of 2025 23. The application that is filed before this Court is therefore needs to be allowed in part by the learned Trial Judge and compromise decree needs to be reopened and rights of the plaintiff shall be adjudicated in accordance with law if the plaintiff/ applicant makes out a right. For that limited purpose, the application shall be entertained by the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No.4160/2010. 24. It is made clear that by allowing the applicant to come on record in O.S No.4160/2010, this Court has not meant that the application needs to be allowed on merits. But it shall be contested by the concerned parties in accordance with law and if the applicant makes out a right, adjudication of the suit in O.S No.4160/2010 shall be carried out in accordance with law. 25. With this observation, the following: ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. (ii) Consequently, O.S.No.8437/2019 stands closed. (iii) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this Order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47094 CRP No. 338 of 2025 (iv) Certified copy of the application filed before this Court shall be filed before the Trial Court in O.S.No.4160/2010. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56