Sri.Aslam Khan Vs Sri.Azmathulla Khan

SRI. AZMATHULLA KHAN S/O LATE MOHAMMED KHAN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT HUNASANAHALLI ROAD, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562119.

¶15

SRI SYED REHAMAN

¶16

S/O LATE SYED GHOUSE, MAJOR, R/AT RAHMANIYA NAGAR, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 17.09.2024 PASSED ON I.A.UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC ALONG WITH MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:43949 WP No. 13936 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

177/2015 BEFORE THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGARA RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶28

"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 17.09.2024 passed on I.A. under Section 151 of CPC along with memo filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.177/2015 before the file of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, at Ramanagara, recorded in the order sheet, produced at Annexure-A, consequently restore the matter before the Trial Court for proper adjudication.

¶29

b) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts & circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶30

2. Smt.Nazeema, learned counsel appearing on

¶31

behalf of Sri.M.S.Mukarram submits that the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43949 WP No. 13936 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Procedure, 1908, seeking restoration of the suit on the ground that the parties to the suit fraudulently settled the dispute before the Lok Adalat, which came to be rejected under the impugned order by the Trial Court. It is submitted

¶35

that though the petitioner was a party to the suit, in the absence of the petitioner, the parties have arrived at a compromise by playing fraud. However, the same has not been appreciated by the Trial Court by allowing the application. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and restoring the suit to its original state.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶37

petitioner and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶38

The respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.177/2015 for the relief of injunction and the said suit came to be withdrawn. The said suit came to be settled

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43949 WP No. 13936 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

between the parties and the same was recorded on 14.09.2019 and the suit of the plaintiff was settled out of Court. The Trial Court, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BHARGAVI

¶42

CONSTRUCTIONS AND ANOTHER Vs. KOTHAKAPU MUTHYAM REDDY AND OTHERS¹ held that challenging the compromise decree on the ground of fraud is not maintainable and the same is required to be challenged in the writ proceedings.

¶43

I have perused the averments made in the writ petition and after considering the submissions, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking to restore the suit on the ground that without participation of the petitioner, the suit came to be compromised by playing for fraud before the Lok Adalat. The appropriate remedy would be to file the writ petition challenging the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶44

1 (2018) 13 SCC 480

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:43949 WP No. 13936 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In view of the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the

¶49

considered view that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application which does not call for any interference in this petition. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Trial Court dated 14.09.2019 as well as the compromise entered into between

¶50

the parties before the Lok Adalat, in accordance with law.

¶51

With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is

¶52

disposed of.

¶53

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶54

RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri.Aslam Khan v. Sri.Azmathulla Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Aslam Khan v. Sri.Azmathulla Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Valerian a Menezes Vs Mr Jannarias Menezes

K. Nithyananda Tholar Vs K. Premanatha Tholar

Mr. Derrick D'Sa Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

Mr. Ayub-Ur-Rehman Vs Mrs. Kaveri Chandrappa

Smt K Padmavathi Vs Sri K Sridhar

Sri T G Ramesh Vs Sri S Ananda