IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.46/2016 (IO) BETWEEN ASHRAF AHMED S/O MOHAMMED MAZARULLA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WITH PERMANENT ADDRESS AT NO. A. 2/1, VIJAY KIRAN APARTMENTS, NO.32, VICTORIA ROAD, BANGALORE-560047. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. KOUSTHUBHA FOR SMT. RAMA R.IYER, ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER) AND MOHAMMED MAZARULLA S/O LATE MOHAMMED HAYATH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.176, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT, BOOPASANDRA, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE-560094. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHILASH RAJU.V FOR SRI. S.R.KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATES) THIS CRP IS FILED U/S 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 02.12.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1328/2013, DISMISSING THE PETITION ON THE FILE OF THE 39TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ‘ADMISSION’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
2. This court taking note of the fact that parties are the father and son by order dated 06.07.2017 was pleased to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru and directed the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre on 28.07.2017 at 11:00 am without waiting any notice.
3. In compliance with the directions of this court, the parties appeared before the Mediation Centre and upon mediation, the parties have amicably settled the dispute in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties under Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 which reads as under:-
“I. The respondent has filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction against the petitioner herein under order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the XXXIX Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No.1328/2013 in CCH-40. The petitioner has challenged impugned order by this CRP against the order dated 02.12.2015 on the Interim Applications (IA-VI and VIII) I.A. VI under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I.A. VII under order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C.
II. The aforesaid petition was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. During the course of mediation, the parties have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions:
1. The petitioner/son admits that the respondent/father is the sole and absolute owner of the schedule property mentioned hereunder:
2. The petitioner has agreed to lookafter the respondent and discharge all his duties as a dutiful son and take care of the respondent’s maintenance, medical aids, and other miscellaneous expenses during his lifetime. The respondent admits that presently he is staying with the petitioner in the suit schedule property.
3. The petitioner hereby undertakes that he shall not disturb or dispossess the respondent from the schedule property and the respondent shall enjoy the property during his lifetime without any interruption/disturbance from the petitioner.
4. The respondent/father has already gifted the schedule property in the name of the petitioner by way of oral gift and the respondent has agreed to comply with all the formalities of the gift deed in due course.
5. The petitioner is ready and bear all the litigation expenses incurred by the respondent. The petitioner also undertakes to discharge the loan incurred by his father/respondent for the medical expenses of his later mother.
6. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the petitioner has agreed to close the above petition as not pressed.”
4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties in the mediation, the revision petition stands disposed off in terms of the memorandum of Settlement as noted supra. There shall be no order as to costs.
In view of disposal of the revision petition, the application I.A. No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration.
CT-HR Chs* Sd/- JUDGE