- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1132 WP No. 107074 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.107074 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. SATISH S/O. YALLAPPA MAJIGI, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAJIGI FARM, TADASINKOPPA, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.K. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JYOTI W/O. VIRUPAXAPPA PUJAR, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SHIVALLI PLOT, BEHIND MURUGHA MATH, RAJNAGAR, DHARWAD, PIN-580004. 2. SMT. SUVARNA W/O. SHIVANAND KADKOL, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. M.C. PLOT, BEHIND APMC ALNAVAR, TQ. DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-580007. 3. PUSHPA CLAIMING HERSELF TO BE THE WIFE OF YALLAPPA MAJIGI, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. APPA AMMA NILAYA, IST FLOOR, MAHENDRAKAR CHAWL, II CROSS, Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1132 WP No. 107074 of 2024 NEAR K.C. PARK ROAD, DHARWAD, PIN-580008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II IN LOK ADALAT ON 19-8-2017 IN O.S.546/2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. 2. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C-II DHARWAD IN CIVIL MISC 27/2017 DATED 09.03.2020 SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H. 3. ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT TO GRANT ANY RELIEF IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 4. HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1132 WP No. 107074 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to: 1. Issue Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the II Addl Civil judge and JMFC-II in Lok adalat on 19-8-2017 in O.S. 546/2013 produced at Annexure-D. 2. Issue Writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order passed by the II Addl Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.-II, Dharwad in Civil Misc 27/2017 dated 09.03.2020 same is produced at Annexure H. 3. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or Direction as deemed fit to grant any relief in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the ends of justice. 4. Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records and allow the writ petition." 2. The facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed O.S.No.546/2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dharwad. The petitioner before this Court is defendant No.1. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and as per the compromise entered between the parties, a decree was passed on 19.08.2017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1132 WP No. 107074 of 2024 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that neither the petitioner nor the petitioner’s advocate is a signatory to the said compromise. According to petitioner, the advocate’s signature is also forged. Immediately, after he came to know about this, the petitioner had filed C.Misc.No.27/2017 before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC- II, Dharwad and that came to be dismissed by order dated 09.03.2020 on the ground that the petitioner cannot file a miscellaneous petition against the Lok Adalat award. Thereafter, in the year 2024, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel further submits that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner was unaware of the dismissal order. During 2021, petitioner's wife left him due to the property dispute, as petitioner has no income at all and there is no property in his name. The petitioner and his family were staying in the suit property and there is no other place to go. Petitioner's wife and his two children left the company of the petitioner and petitioner was in complete depression, lost interest in the dispute. On 04.05.2023, petitioner's elder son expired. It was shocking for both petitioner and his wife. After that incident, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1132 WP No. 107074 of 2024 petitioner's wife came back to petitioner to lead life. Meanwhile, some people started visiting the suit property to purchase the property. As petitioner is staying in the suit property, he came to know that suit property was divided into 4 parts. Then the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In the process, the delay has occurred. It is submitted that the said compromise decree is not binding on them and the same is obtained by playing fraud, as such the same needs to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/ plaintiffs submits that even if there is no signature of the petitioner/defendant No.1 in the compromise memo, the petitioner’s advocate has signed and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. In such case, the compromise decree cannot be set aside. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K.Srinivasappa and Others Vs. M.Mallamma and Others1. He has relied on paragraph No.35 which reads thus: “35. It is a settled position of law that where an allegation of fraud is made against a party to an 1 2022 (4) Kar. L.J 372 (SC) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1132 WP No. 107074 of 2024 agreement, the said allegation would have to be proved strictly, in order to avoid the agreement on the ground that fraud was practiced on a party in order to induce such party to enter into the agreement. Similarly, the terms of a compromise decree, cannot be avoided, unless the allegation of fraud has been proved. In the absence of any conclusive proof as to fraud on the part of the objectors, the High Court could not have set aside the compromise decree in the instant case. “ 6. Relying on this judgment, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that this is not a case where the compromise decree has to be set aside. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Whenever a compromise is entered into between the parties, when the same is reported before the Court, it is the duty of the Court to seek the presence of the parties and also ask the parties whether they have entered into the compromise as per the memo filed before the Court, whether all the parties to the compromise have signed the same or not. But in this case, admittedly, the signature of defendant No.1 is not there in the compromise memo. In that case, the Lok Adalat ought not to have passed the award basing on the compromise memo. When the party’s signature is not there, whatsoever is the reason, that cannot be termed as a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1132 WP No. 107074 of 2024 compromise entered into between the parties. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment in K.Srinivasappa’s case referred supra to substantiate his argument that only the limited grounds are available for this Court to interfere with the Lok Adalat award. The bare minimum requirement is that a party to the compromise should be a signatory to the same and without going into other aspects, on that ground alone, the compromise decree has to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The compromise decree passed in O.S.No.546/2013 dated 19.08.2017 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Dharwad before Lok Adalat, is set aside and O.S.No.546/2013 is restored to file. ii. The parties are at liberty to pursue the suit. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18