IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.1708 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
Smt. Mahadevi V.H., W/o. Vijay Vardhan M.H. Aged about 47 years Residing at No.74, 4th Cross, Nagareddy Layout, Ejipura, Koramangala 6th Annexe Block, Bangalore – 560 095.
(By Sri. R. Nataraj, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Achu Paul, D/o. P.K. Paul, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.C2, Ganesh Apartment, 3’A’ Cross, Atmananda Colony, Sultanpalya, Bangalore – 560 034.
…Appellant 2. Dr. Vishwanath, Appeal dismissed Major, W/at Lavish Hospital, v/o.dt.01-07-2019 1st Cross, Tavarekere, Bangalore – 560 081.
…Respondents (By Sri. Rupert M. Rosario, Adv. for R1;
R-2 – appeal dismissed v/o. dt.01-07-2019) **** This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the order dated:29.10.2014 passed in Ex.No.2670/2005 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.28), rejecting the I.A.No.5 filed U/O.21, Rules 97, 100 and 101, R/w. Sec.151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Called again.
Learned counsels from both side present.
2. The parties in person present and they are identified by their respective learned counsels.
3. Learned counsels from both side submit that they do not press the Compromise Petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 28-06-2019 and submit that they are filing fresh similar application and pray for liberty to file a fresh application.
4. In view of the said submission made from both side, which is also supported by the submission made by the parties who are present in person, the Compromise Petition dated 28-06-2019 filed by both side is dismissed as not pressed, reserving liberty to file a similar Compromise Petition afresh.
5. Both parties have jointly filed a Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 afresh. It is stated in the said petition that both side parties, at the instance of the well wishers and neighbours, have amicably settled the dispute in Execution No.2670/2005 on the following terms:-
a) The respondent No.1 has no objection to allow the appeal and allow the obstruction application of the appellant in Execution Petition No.2670/2005 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.
b) The respondent No.1 has no objection to set aside the exparte judgment and Decree dated 17.03.2005 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.8199/1998 and consequently to dismiss the suit in O.S.NO.8199/1998.
c) The respondent No.1 has no objection for a decree to be drawn in terms of this compromise.”
6. They have prayed to allow this appeal in terms of the Compromise Petition (they have called it a ‘joint memo’).
7. Learned counsels from both side make the supporting submission in support of the Compromise Petition. When enquired, both side parties also make the supporting submission on the terms of the Compromise Petition.
8. Both side learned counsels and the parties present further submit that the said compromise which they have entered into is out of their free consent, volition and keeping their best interest under consideration. By the above enquiry with the parties and the submission made by the learned counsels from both side, it is convinced that both parties have compromised the matter keeping their best interest under consideration and out of their free consent and volition. Since the compromise is not against any provision of law, the same can be accepted and the appeal can be disposed of on the terms of the Compromise Petition.
9. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The order dated 29-10-2014 passed by the learned XIV Additional City civil Judge at Bangalore (CCH-28) in Execution No.2670/2005 rejecting the obstructor application is set aside.
On the terms of the compromise, which the parties have entered into as aforesaid, the said application stands allowed. The original suit of the present respondent in O.S.No.8199/1998 (from which Execution No.2670/2005 has arisen) stands dismissed.
Draw the modified decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*