Bombay High Court
ANIL NIVRUTTI LOKHANDEversusSHANKUNTALA DATTATRAYA LOKHANDE DECD AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- MILIND N JADHAV
Holding
A writ petition challenging a compromise decree is not maintainable; the petitioner must seek relief in the appropriate civil court where the substantive suit is pending.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Nivrutti Lokhande, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that a compromise decree dated 7 May 2024, executed in a regular civil appeal, was fraudulent and void, alleging it affected his substantive property rights. The court held that the remedy for such a claim lies in filing an application before the appropriate civil court, not through a writ petition that adjudicates factual disputes. It noted that the petitioner had already instituted a regular civil suit (Suit No.9 of 2022) pending before the trial court before the compromise was effected, and that the issues raised in the writ petition were already open in that suit. Consequently, the writ petition was deemed non‑maintainable for lack of cause of action. The petition was therefore dismissed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for seeking a declaration that a compromise decree is fraudulent and void?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when the same relief can be pursued in a pending civil suit?
Subjects
- writ petition
- compromise decree
- jurisdiction
- declaratory relief
- civil suit
Judgment
20.WP.2098.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2098 OF 2026
Anil Nivrutti Lokhande .. Petitioner
Versus
Shakuntala Dattatraya Lokhande (since
deceased) Aditya Sadasiv Ippar and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Divya Parab, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent No.10 – State of
Maharashtra.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Parab, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms.
Gavhane, learned AGP for Respondent No.10 – State of Maharashtra.
2. Admittedly Petitioner is a third party aggrieved with the
Compromise Decree dated 07.05.2024 which is executed between
parties in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2018. According to Petitioner,
he seeks a declaration that said compromise deed (Sulenama) is to be
declared as fraud and void-ab-initio as it affects his substantive right in
the subject property which is the subject of the Sulenama.
3. If such declaratory relief is sought, the remedy available to
the Petitioner is to approach the Civil Court having appropriate
jurisdiction and not by way of Writ Petition to decide disputed
questions of fact. Petitioner is entitled to take out appropriate
1 of 2
20.WP.2098.2026.doc
application below Exhibit-5 therein in accordance with law.
4. Ms. Parab informs the Court that Petitioner has already
instituted a Suit namely Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2022 which is
already pending in the Trial Court even before the Compromise was
effected. If not a party to the proceedings before the Court which has
passed the impugned order, present Writ Petition is not maintainable
for cause of action as stated therein and the declaratory reliefs.
5. All contentions of Petitioner are otherwise kept expressly
open in the suit proceeding filed by him.
6. In view of the above, Petition stands dismissed and disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.02.17
18:26:55 +0530
2 of 2
Checking your session…