Abuse of process: Karnataka HC dismisses challenge to 3-year-old compromise decree with ₹25k costs

The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging a compromise decree nearly three years after it was recorded, holding that the litigant had abused the process of law by seeking to resile from a settlement after having accepted its benefits [Chethan Kumar Vs K L Jayaraj and others].

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

The Court further ordered that if the amount was 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 said.

The case arose out of a property dispute in which the petitioner was arrayed as a defendant.

The parties filed a compromise petition and signed a compromise order sheet before a Lok Adalat on August 13, 2021. However, years later, the defendant (petitioner in the High Court) challenged the validity of this settlement before the High Court.

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

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

Questioning the petitioner's conduct, the Bench asked,

"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 that,

"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."

The Bench proceeded to caution litigants against entering into settlements and later disowning 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.