ORDER : 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the compromise decree dated 20th March 2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Raibag in O.S. No.82 of 2009. 2. Petitioner has produced the compromise petition at Annexure ‘B’ and the compromise decree at Annexure ‘C’. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-Vittal against his brother and sister seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. As per the compromise arrived at between the parties, a compromise petition was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of theCodeofCivilProcedure,1908(for short ‘CPC’) on 20th March 2010. In the compromise petition, it has been stated that the present petitioner-sister of the plaintiff, had received two tolas of gold and had given up her share in favour of her two brothers. The compromise petition had been duly signed by the parties including present petitioner-Siddavva. The thumb mark put by Siddavvaon the compromise petition has been identified. Her lawyer has also signed. The compromise petition has been accepted and a compromise decree has been passed as per the order dated 20th March 2010 before the Lok Adalat. 3. After a lapse of about five years from the date of decree passed, present Writ Petition has been filed by Siddavva-complaining that the decree passed by the Court below was erroneous, inasmuch as she was not given any share in the suit schedule properties. She further alleged that compromise was entered into at the instance of plaintiff and defendant No.1 with their active collusion and to defeat her rights. It is urged in the writ petition that plaintiff and defendant No.1 had engaged a counsel of their choice and they accepted the terms of compromise petition. They had got compromise petition signed by the petitioner and therefore, the compromise decree passed was not binding on her. 4. It has to be noticed at this stage that for the last five years, petitioner has not made any grievance about the alleged collusion by her brothers in obtaining the compromise decree. She had not made any grievance against her advocate who had represented her in the suit. Having kept quiet for five years, she has come up with this Petition making bare allegations, which are not based on any credible material. She had not made any grievance against her advocate who had represented her in the suit. Having kept quiet for five years, she has come up with this Petition making bare allegations, which are not based on any credible material. Had it been a case of fraud and collusion with the connivance and help of the counsel, petitioner could not have kept quiet for five long years. She could have certainly filed a complaint against her lawyer, more so, against her brothers-plaintiff and defendant No.1. Her conduct in maintaining golden silence discloses that she has come up with false assertion only to engage this Court in baseless adjudication of the unrighteous litigation.