The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging a compromise decree nearly three years after it was recorded, holding that a litigant cannot seek to backtrack on a settlement after having accepted its benefits.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) within four weeks.

The Court further ordered that if the amount is not paid by July 14, KSLSA would be entitled to recover it as arrears of land revenue.

“The petitioner, having executed a compromise petition, signed the order sheet and received the benefit therefrom, has challenged the compromise after nearly three years by filing the above petition on 6.2.2024... I am of the considered opinion that the present petition is only an abuse of the process of law,” the Court observed.

The case stemmed from a property dispute in which the petitioner was one of the defendants.

The parties had entered into a settlement before a Lok Adalat on August 13, 2021, by filing a compromise petition and signing the compromise order sheet. Nearly three years later, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to invalidate the settlement.

He alleged that fraud had been played upon him, claiming that only a draft compromise petition had been shown to him and that the final compromise deed, which allegedly curtailed his rights and imposed additional financial obligations, had not been properly explained. He also contended that he was not present when the Lok Adalat accepted the compromise.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Chidambara G.S. argued that under a registered Will, the petitioner was entitled to certain property and had been induced into signing the compromise based on a draft document relating to a different extent of land.

During the hearing, the Bench questioned the petitioner’s conduct, asking, “What did you sign, the draft or the final one?”

When the petitioner maintained that he had signed the final compromise without understanding its contents, the Court remarked, “You have admitted the contents. It's been explained to you. They are true and correct. You have signed the order sheet. You have signed the compromise. Thereafter, to say ‘I don't know the contents’ is not useful.”

Justice Govindaraj also cautioned against the growing tendency of litigants to disown settlements after voluntarily entering into them.

“The day when we start taking action against all these people, they go before the Lok Adalat, do a compromise and then come back and say ‘I don't know the contents’... We start initiating proceedings. We will refer this matter to the Bar Council. Your allegation is that the advocate has not explained it to you. We'll refer it. But then let us see. Doing a compromise and coming here and making all these submissions... This is not injustice, this is overreaching the Court,” the Bench observed.

Case: Chethan Kumar v. K.L. Jayaraj & Ors.