L.DAYANANADA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this petition call in question an order passed by the Trial Court in OS No.960/2019 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking refund of Court fee of Rs.2,63,000.00 which was paid while instituting the suit in OS No.960/2019.

(2.) Sans details, brief facts leading to the filing of present petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows: The 2nd respondent-defendant instituted a suit for specific performance before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rural District, Bengaluru at Bengaluru in OS No. 1680/2018. This suit ended in a compromise being recorded by the Court which ended in closure of the suit. The petitioners claiming that fraud was played by the plaintiff therein on the Court while recording the compromise decree which was without their consent, filed another suit in OS No.960/2019 seeking annulment of a compromise decree that was arrived at inOSNo.1680/2018.

(3.) The trial Court, in OS No.960/2019, entertained the suit and also granted a temporary injunction against the second respondent herein who was the plaintiff in OS.No.1680/2018. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff in OS NO. 1680/2018 contending that under Order XXIII Rule 3(a) of CPC, an application ought to have been filed before the Court which had recorded the compromise and not a separate suit. It is then the petitioners withdrew the suit and filed an application before the very same Court which had recorded the compromise, seeking recalling of the said compromise decree.