Court held writ petition challenging acceptance of settlement memorandum alleging fraud is not maintainable. Plaintiff must approach the trial court via appropriate petition to annul the settlement.
Petition disposed reserving liberty to petitioners to approach the Court of Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala. Time consumed deducted for limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2300 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MENKU POOJARTHY SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. SANDESH S.N. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE NARAYANA NAYAK RESIDENT OF MAHALAKSHMI NIVASA, HADIYANGADI POST, SHIRLAL VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576201
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHARATH P.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 21.03.2020 MADE IN O.S.NO.116/2017 BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 in O.S. No.116/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karkala, have filed this petition challenging an order dated 21.03.2020, by which memorandum of settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 was accepted.
made by defendant Nos.2 to 4/petitioners against the plaintiff/respondent herein was that a memorandum of settlement was brought about fraudulently in terms of which, the defendant Nos.2 to 4 were forced to accept to pay a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- as against the suit claim, which was for a sum of Rs.12,99,701/-. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the writ petition challenging the order of the Trial Court dated 21.03.2020 accepting the memorandum of settlement is not maintainable and the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the same Court which accepted the memorandum of settlement and make appropriate petition to anull the memorandum of settlement on the ground of fraud.
Nos.2 to 4 submitted that liberty may be reserved to the petitioners to approach the concerned Court.
petition stands disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court of Senior Civil Judge and
NC: 2024:KHC:12336 WP No. 2300 of 2022
ACJM, Karkala, which accepted the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S. No.116/2017. The time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating limitation to any proceeding that may be initiated.
Sd/JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the acceptance of a memorandum of settlement in a civil suit is maintainable when fraud is alleged.
Whether the appropriate remedy lies before the trial court or in a writ jurisdiction.
SMT. BABY POOJARTHY
SMT. LEELA
SMT. SHANTHA
SRI. SANDESH S.N.
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
