General Manager vs Smt.Dilshad Begum W/O Dadasab ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3180 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

                          PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

                            AND

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

               MFA No.103530/2015 (FC)

Between:

1.    General Manager,
      Rep. by its General Manager,
      South Western Railways,
      Hubballi-580020.

2.    The Chief Workshop Manager,
      CWM Carriage Repair Workshop,
      South Western Railways,
      Hubballi-580020.

3.    The Workshop Personal Officer,
      Carriage Repair Workshop,
      South Western Railways,
      Hubballi-580020.

4.    The Welfare Inspector Office,
      Carriage Repair Workshop,
      South Western Railways,
      Hubballi-580020.
                                         ... Appellants
(By Shri Ajay U.Patil, Advocate)
                               :2:



And:

1.     Smt. Dilshad Begum,
       W/o. Dadasab Nadimulla,
       Age 42 years, occ: Household work,
       R/o.: Madolli, Now at Goudar Oni,
       Navalgund-582208,
       Dist.: Dharwad.

2.     Smt. Rehana Begum Calling herself
       As wife of Dadasab Nadimulla,
       Age 37 years, Occ: House maker,
       R/o.: H.No.5, Gopanakoppa,
       Rajaji Nagar, Devangpeth,
       Hubballi-580020.

3.     Kumari Ranjum
       D/o. Dadasab Nadimulla,
       Age 8 years, Occ: Student,
       R/o.: H.No.8, Gopanakoppa,
       Rajaji Nagar, Devangpeth,
       Hubballi-580020.
                                                 ... Respondents
(By Shri B.M. Angadi, Advocate for R1;
 Shri Srinivas B.Naik, Advocate for R2;
 R3 minor is rep. by Respondent No.1)


       This MFA is filed praying this Hon'ble Court to allow this
appeal and set aside the order dated 20.08.2014 and decree
dated 27.08.2014, passed in O.S. No.41/2013 by the Famly
Court, Hubballi by dismissing the suit.


       This   MFA   coming    on    for   admission,   this   day,
B. Veerappa, J, delivere5d the following:
                              :3:



                       JUDGMENT

The office raised the objection with regard to the

maintainability of the present appeal, which is filed against

the impugned order dated 28.08.2014 decreeing the suit in

terms of the compromise petition in view of the provisions of

Section 19(2) of the Family Court Act.

2. In view of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3

and 3A of CPC, it is clear that where it is provided that a suit

has been adjusted wholly or in the part by any lawful

agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the

parties, the Court before whom such person has right shall

decide the same. What is important is that in terms of the

explanation of order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, the agreement shall

not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of the said

provisio. It follows in every case that whatever the agreement

or compromise is writing and signed by the parties, is liable to

be determined by the Court concerned. Our view is fortified by

the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 in

the case of R.Rajanna V. S.R. Venkataswamy and others

reported in 2015(1) AIR SCW 531, the appeal is not

maintainable.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant

after arguing the matter for some time submits that liberty

may be reserved to the appellant to file necessary application

before the same Court, who passed the order on the

compromise petition in view of the provisions of Order XXIII

Rule 3 and 3A of CPC. The submission is placed on record.

4. In view of the above, the office objection is upheld

and the appeal is disposed of as not maintainable with liberty

to the appellant to avail the remedy in accordance with law.

sd JUDGE

sd JUDGE Vnp*