- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15813 WP No. 25721 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25721 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT MARIYAMMA W/O LATE KUNTASHETTHY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT TONDALU VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI HUNSUR TALUKU MYSURU DISTRICT – 571105 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI T K GANGADHARA S/O LATE KRISHNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 3. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O LATE KULLASHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 4. SMT LAKSHMI W/O LATE CHELUVARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 5. SMT PALLAVI W/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15813 WP No. 25721 of 2025 R1 TO R5 ARE R/AT TONDALU VILLAGE & POST KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571105 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRITHVI RAJ B N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED: 14.09.24 IN OS NO. 296/24 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HUNSUR PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the compromise decree passed on 14/20.09.2024 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short) in O.S.No.296/2024 vide Annexure-C. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Triloki Nath Singh vs. Anirudh Singh (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15813 WP No. 25721 of 2025 reported in (2020) 6 SCC 629, wherein, it has held that a person questioning the lawfulness of a compromise decree must approach the same Court which recorded the compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 and Rule 3A of CPC. 3. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has to approach the same Court which recorded the compromise decree for appropriate relief. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate legal forum, in accordance with law, if so advised. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2