The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea challenging a three-year-old compromise decree, ruling that a party cannot withdraw after accepting settlement benefits. Justice Suraj Govindaraj imposed Rs 25,000 costs on the petitioner, calling the delayed challenge an abuse of the legal process.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition that challenged a compromise decree recorded nearly three years earlier, stating that a party cannot “turn back” on a settlement after accepting its advantages.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj imposed Rs 25,000 as costs on the petitioner and directed that it be deposited with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) within four weeks. The Court also ordered that if the amount is not paid by July 14, KSLSA would be able to recover it as arrears of land revenue.
Observing that the petition was filed after a long delay despite the petitioner having executed the compromise, the Court said:
“The petitioner, having executed a compromise petition, signed the order sheet and received the benefit therefrom, has challenged the compromise after nearly three years by filing the above petition on 6.2.2024… I am of the considered opinion that the present petition is only an abuse of the process of law,”
The dispute arose out of a property controversy in which the petitioner was one of the defendants. The parties had settled the matter before a Lok Adalat on August 13, 2021, by submitting a compromise petition and signing the compromise order sheet.
However, about three years later, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking to invalidate the settlement. The petitioner alleged that he was subjected to fraud, claiming that only a draft compromise petition was shown to him, while the final compromise deed said to have reduced his rights and imposed further financial obligations was not properly explained. He also claimed he was not present when the Lok Adalat accepted the compromise.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Chidambara G.S. argued that, under a registered Will, the petitioner was entitled to certain property and that he was induced to sign the compromise based on a draft document concerning a different extent of land.
During the proceedings, the Bench questioned the petitioner’s actions and asked:
“What did you sign, the draft or the final one?”
When the petitioner claimed that he signed the final compromise without understanding its contents, the Court replied:
“You have admitted the contents. It’s been explained to you. They are true and correct. You have signed the order sheet. You have signed the compromise. Thereafter, to say ‘I don’t know the contents’ is not useful.”
Justice Govindaraj further cautioned against what he termed a growing practice where litigants disown settlements after voluntarily entering into them.
He observed:
“The day when we start taking action against all these people, they go before the Lok Adalat, do a compromise and then come back and say ‘I don’t know the contents’… We start initiating proceedings. We will refer this matter to the Bar Council. Your allegation is that the advocate has not explained it to you. We’ll refer it. But then let us see. Doing a compromise and coming here and making all these submissions… This is not injustice, this is overreaching the Court,”
Case Title: Chethan Kumar v. K.L. Jayaraj & Ors.