IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA R.S.A. NO.1046/2017 BETWEEN:
MR.SANJEEV KAPUR, S/O.SHRI J.R.KAPUR, AGED ABOUT 56 YRS, PROP: M/S.AMBIKA ENTERPRISES, RESIDING AT 307, GARDEN APARTMENTS, VITTAL MALYA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI: G. KRISHNAMURTHY, Sr.ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.R.RAVI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE ) AND:
M/s.MANMEET ARCADE PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, Mr.RAJ PRAFULLACHANDRA – VITHALJI, AGED ABOUT 72 YRS, RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS FALNIR, MANGALURU – 575 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.PUSHPALATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.L.ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25/3/2017 PASSED IN RA.NO.34/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND PARTLY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 2/3/2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.434/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU, D.K. C/C IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU D.K.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T Pursuant to order dated 09/11/2017, learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent sought time to explore the possibility of a settlement in the matter. Today, in the pre lunch session learned senior counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel for respondent jointly submitted that a compromise petition would be filed before this court in the post lunch session. When the matter is taken up in the post lunch session, learned counsel for respective parties have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
2. Learned counsel for both parties submit that having regard to the terms of compromise, the judgment and decree of the courts below may be modified and substituted to that extent.
3. It is noted that appellant – Sri Sanjeev Kapur and, Sri Manjesh Raj, one of the Directors of the respondent – private limited company, are present before this court. They are identified by their respective counsel. They submit that dispute between the parties is resolved and a compromise petition has been filed and that the second appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. They further submit that compromise has been arrived at on their own volition and without there being any force or coercion from any quarter. Hence, they submit that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise, which submission is endorsed by learned counsel for respective parties. In the circumstances, memorandum of compromise petition is taken on record.
4. This appeal is filed by defendant in O.S.No.434/2013, assailing judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.34/2015 dated 25/03/2017 by the first Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore (DK), by which, judgment and decree of the trial court has been modified only in respect of mesne profits while confirming the rest of the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 02/03/2015 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangalore, in O.S.No.434/2013. The compromise petition is signed by the appellant and the authorized signatory of the respondent – company and their respective counsel. In view of the settlement between the parties and the compromise petition being taken on record, the terms of the compromise are noted and they read as under:-
“Compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The above named appellant and respondent jointly submits as follows:
The appellant and the respondents have compromised the case on the following terms:
1. The appellant undertakes to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule premises on or before 31.12.2017 to the respondent without causing damages except normal wear and tear while removing the fixtures, furniture etc, and without driving the respondent to the executing court.
2. The appellant has deposited Rs.5,00,000- 00 (five lakhs) before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore (DK) in R.A.No.34/2015 which was taken by the respondent in which the appellant has no claim.
3. The appellant has paid the up to date rent at the rate of Rs.17,090/- per month, which was credited directly to the account of the respondent and the respondent has no claim against the appellant in respect of the arrears of rent.
4. The appellant has deposited Rs.4,50,000/- with the respondent as a security deposit and from this amount, the respondent can adjust Rs.25,000/- towards the rent for the month of December, 2017 and the balance of the amount Rs.4,25,000/- shall be returned to the appellant by way of demand draft/bank pay order at the time when the appellant vacates the suit schedule premises.
5. The appellant shall not induct any third party into the suit premises, as a tenant.
6. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispose off the suit, in the above terms.”
5. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties in presence of the signatories to the compromise petition and on noting the terms of the compromise, I find that the appeal could be disposed of in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.
6. In the result, judgment and decree of the courts below are substituted by the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The appeal is accordingly, disposed in the aforesaid terms.
Registry is directed to refund 75% of the court fee paid by the appellant, after due verification, in view of Section 66(2)(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2014).
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs