IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.124 of 2016 (RES) BETWEEN :
1. MAHAVEER JAIN COLLEGE NO.91/2, KAVI LAKSHMISHA ROAD, V.V.PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.PINTU AGARWAL.
2. R.CHENARAJ JAIN HONORARY SECRETARY MAHAVEER JAIN COLLEGE S/O.ROYCHAND CHAJJER AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT:
NO.91/2, KAVI LAKSHMISHA ROAD, V.V.PURAM BANGALORE – 560 004. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SURYANARAYANA T., ADVOCATE) AND:
V.NAGARAJ S/O.V.A.VENKATACHALAPATHY SETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT: NO.179 NOW SHIFTED TO NO.181, SRINIVASA MANDIRAM ROAD, BALEPET, BANGALORE – 560 053. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.09.2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-25) IN O.S.NO.8858/2010 (ANNEXURE – A) AND ETC., THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants submits that joint memo has been filed and signed by the respective parties seeking disposal of this appeal as having been settled out of Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants – defendants in the suit submits that they have given possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent – plaintiff and further the decree of the trial Court has been satisfied by way of settlement. Therefore, the appeal is not pressed on account of the out of Court settlement arrived at between the parties. He submits that in the joint memo it has been stated that the respondent has acknowledged possession of the suit schedule property being taken and that neither of the parties have any claim whatsoever against each other. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the appeal may be dismissed as not pressed on account of the out of Court settlement arrived at between the parties and direction may be issued for refund of the Court fee.
3. The submission of Sri.Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants is placed on record.
4. The joint memo is perused.
5. Appeal is dismissed as not pressed on account of the out of Court settlement arrived at between the parties.
6. In view of the same, office is directed to refund 75% of the Court fee to the appellant No.1, represented by its Power of Attorney Holder under Section 66 (2) (c) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE VMB