Failure to implement the Lok Adalat compromise justified setting aside the decree and restoring the suit.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1826/2008, challenged the compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat on 20 April 2009.

They alleged that the agreed allotments—including portions in Sy. Nos. 68 and 42/19—had not been implemented, and that the male coparceners’ subsequent claims and phodi proceedings were inconsistent with the compromise.

The compromise also required defendant No. 1 to resolve, at his own cost, any dispute concerning Sy. No. 68.

Despite efforts during the writ proceedings, the parties could not reach a settlement.

Whether the compromise decree should be set aside and the original partition suit restored where the compromise had not been implemented and disputes over the subject properties continued.

Whether the possibility of subsequent third-party interests prevented restoration of the suit.

The Court considered Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the petitioners invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, and the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure that had resulted in the challenged order.

It treated the compromise’s terms—including defendant No. 1’s undertaking concerning Sy. No. 68—as obligations relevant to whether the settlement had been effectively implemented.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a broader statutory test for setting aside a compromise decree.

The Court found that the compromise had not achieved a final resolution: the agreed allotments remained unimplemented, the dispute concerning Sy. No. 68 persisted, and the parties continued to contest rights in the properties covered by the settlement.

The failed settlement efforts confirmed that no workable consensual arrangement was available.

The Court further held that any third-party interests created by parties who knew of the compromise and its non-implementation could not, in the circumstances, prevent restoration of the suit for adjudication.

The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 29 October 2026 without fresh notice; all contentions were left open, and the Trial Court was asked to dispose of the suit expeditiously.