[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri V Sunil Kumar S/O V. Vankateshulu vs M/S Omkar Agencies on 3 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1469
WP No. 109999 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.109999 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. V. SUNIL KUMAR S/O. V. VANKATESHULU,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO.4, VAIBHAV NILAYA,
VEERANAGOUDA COLONY, ADJACENT BELLARY CLUB,
INFANTRY ROAD, BALLARI-583103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SADIQALI N.GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. OMKAR AGENCIES,
BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SMT. JAGADISH KULKARNI,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NO.124, BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
DIST. BALLARI-583103.
Digitally signed 2. M/S. VAIBHAVA IRON ORE MINE,
by YASHAVANT BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
NARAYANKAR SHRI. V. VENKATESHULU,
Location: HIGH AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
COURT OF R/O. PLOT NO.4, VAIBHAV NILAYA,
KARNATAKA
VEERANAGOUDA COLONY, ADJACENT BELLARI CLUB,
INFANTRY ROAD, BALLARI-583103.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (I) A WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
05.06.2025 PASSED BY IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
(COMMERCIAL COURT) BALLARI IN COM O.S.NO.182/2019 ON
I.A.NO.16 AND 17 VIDE ANNEXURE-K. (II) ISSUE SUCH OTHER
RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1469
WP No. 109999 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.16 in
COM.O.S.No.182/2019 dated 05.06.2025 by the IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Ballari, the
petitioner/defendant No.2 is before this Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner is the defendant No.2. He filed
I.A.No.16 with a prayer to recall the order of compromise dated
28.02.2023, according to them, which is vitiated by fraud and
the suit has to be restored to its original stage. The Trial Court,
by order impugned, had dismissed the same by observing that it
is needless to state that fraud is to be proved as per Order VI
Rule 4 of CPC. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an inquiry
with regard to the alleged fraud purported to be played by the
plaintiff in compromising the decreed matter. When the Trial
Court insisted for inquiry on I.A.No.16, the learned counsel for
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1469
HC-KAR
the defendant No.2, on 16.04.2025, had submitted before the
Trial court that he will not lead evidence on I.A.No.16. On
28.04.2025, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that
he has no evidence to lead on I.A.No.16 as defendant No.2 has
not chosen to lead evidence on I.A.No.16. Hence, the Trial Court
is handicapped from appreciating the contentions of the
defendant No.2 raised on I.A.No.16 without notice. In addendum
to this, it is also essential to note that similar application was
filed by the defendant i.e. I.A.No.13 under Section 151 of CPC,
which came to be rejected on 07.11.2024. The said order also
operates as res judicata in respect of I.A.No.16. Hence, the Trial
Court dismissed the application with costs of ₹5,000/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/defendant No.2 submits that without instructions to
the plaintiff, the advocate had stated before the Trial Court that
he has no instructions. As such, the order impugned needs to be
set aside.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
perused material on record.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1469
HC-KAR
6. When an application is filed seeking to set aside a
compromise decree on the ground that the same is obtained by
playing fraud, the party, who pleads fraud, has to prove the
same by adducing necessary evidence. In this case, the counsel
for the defendant No.2, as per the order of the Trial Court, has
refused to lead evidence. The submission of the learned counsel
that without instructions the advocate has acted cannot be taken
into consideration. If the advocate had acted contrary to the
instructions of the party, he has a remedy. There is nothing on
record to show that he has taken any action against the
advocate. Hence, for the sake of argument this Court cannot
accept the said submission.
7. The Trial Court has observed that already another
application i.e., I.A.No.13 was filed, which came to be rejected
on 07.11.2024 and the Trial Court observed that the same will
apply as res-judicata and dismissed the I.A.No.16 with costs of
₹5,000/-.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial
Court had rightly imposed costs and dismissed the application as
it appears that without leading the evidence, the petitioner wants
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1469
HC-KAR
the Trial Court to say that it is a decree obtained by fraud.
Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order
impugned and accordingly, passing the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
YAN
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
