Synopsis

The petitioner (defendant No.1 in the suit) challenged an order rejecting his application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of plaint. The plaintiffs had earlier been parties to a compromise decree passed by a Lok Adalat in OS No.300/2014 for partition of certain properties. Subsequently, they filed a fresh suit (OS No.262/2022) seeking partition of additional properties, alleging that the earlier compromise decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The trial court rejected the defendant’s application for rejection of plaint. The Karnataka High Court allowed the revision petition, holding that a separate suit to avoid a compromise decree is barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC. The only remedy for a party aggrieved by a compromise decree (including one passed by a Lok Adalat) is to approach the same court that passed the decree and prove that the agreement was invalid. Adding new properties or parties cannot circumvent this bar. The plaint was accordingly rejected.

Court: High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad

Coram: Justice Ravi V. Hosmani

Date of Judgment: 8th April 2026

Citation: 2026:KHC-D:5261 (CRP No.100019/2025)

Core Law: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order VII Rule 11, Order XXIII Rule 3A, Section 115)

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) (rejection of plaint where suit appears from statement in plaint to be barred by any law), Order XXIII Rule 3A (bar on separate suit to set aside compromise decree), Section 115 (revision)

• Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat (compromise decree has same force as decree of civil court)

Key legal principles applied

• Bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: No suit shall lie to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful. The only remedy is to approach the court that passed the decree and prove that the agreement was invalid.

• Lok Adalat compromise decree: A compromise decree passed by a Lok Adalat has the same force as a decree of a civil court. The same bar applies. The aggrieved party must approach the same Lok Adalat or the court which referred the matter, not file a separate suit.

• Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d): The court must consider only the plaint averments and documents appended to it. The defence set up by the defendant is irrelevant.

• Allegation of fraud does not bypass the bar: Even if fraud is alleged, the proper remedy is to approach the same court that recorded the compromise, not to file a separate suit.

• Adding new properties or parties cannot circumvent the bar: If plaintiffs were parties to the earlier compromise, they cannot, by adding more properties or more parties, file a fresh suit to challenge the same compromise. The proper course is to seek inclusion of left‑out properties in the final decree proceedings of the earlier suit.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.