T Vijiaya Kumar vs K Ravi
2022 Latest Caselaw 1897 AP

               THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI



            Civil Revision Petition Nos.38, 60 & 203 of 2019



COMMON ORDER:


      These three Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by the respondents 2 and 3 in I.A.Nos.3101 of 2015,

3102 of 2015 and 3103 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge,

Guntur, in unregistered appeals filed for condonation of delay of 627

days in preferring appeals against the decrees and judgments passed in

O.S.Nos.131 of 2003, 429 of 2005 and 45 of 2004 respectively, are

directed against the common order, dated 06.08.2018, passed therein.

2. The plaintiffs and the defendant in all the three suits are one and

the same. O.S.No.131 of 2003 and O.S.No.45 of 2004 are filed for

declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction, whereas the

suit in O.S.No.429 of 2005 was filed for perpetual injunction. All the

three suits were decreed, by separate judgments passed by the learned

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. As there is delay of 627 days in

preferring the appeals against the decrees and judgments passed in

O.S.Nos.131 of 2003, 429 of 2005 and 45 of 2004 respectively,

I.A.Nos.3101, 3102 and 3103 of 2015 were filed seeking condonation of

delay.

3. The Court below, by the common order, dated 06.08.2018,

impugned in these revisions, allowed the applications subject to payment

of costs of Rs.3,000/- in each application by the petitioner to the

respondents.

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.38, 60 & 203 of 2019

4. While matters stood thus, a joint memo is filed by the petitioners

and respondents 1 and 3. The 2nd respondent reportedly died on

30.03.2021. The respondent No.3 is shown to be not necessary party to

these revisions.

5. The parties who have entered into compromise are physically

present before this Court today and affirmed the contents of the joint

memo. They are identified by the respective counsel of the parties.

They have produced copies of documents in proof of their respective

identities.

6. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the parties

have agreed to withdraw the allegations and counter allegations made

against each other and also resolved not to raise any sort of claims or

demands against each other and that therefore, these revisions may be

disposed of, in terms of the compromise and as a sequel to the

settlement arrived at between the parties.

7. Since these revisions are against the applications condoning delay

in filing appeals and the appeals challenging the decrees and judgments

allowing the suits are pending, the parties intend now to abide by the

decrees passed in the suits in view of the compromise and get the same

recorded by the appellate Court. As such, not pressing the appeals

would be in conformity with the compromise as agreed upon in the joint

memo filed. This Court deems it fit and proper to give liberty to the

parties to appear before the appellate Court and do the needful to get

the compromise recorded in pursuance of the terms of the joint memo of

compromise.

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.38, 60 & 203 of 2019

8. In the light of the afore-stated development and in view of the

joint memo filed by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion

that there is no reason to keep this revision petitions pending.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as

infructuous giving the parties liberty aforesaid.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 20th April, 2022 RAR