Sri. Nithin.N. Gujjar vs Sri. Gopal Krishna
2021 Latest Caselaw 5692 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

                R.F.A. No. 969 OF 2016
BETWEEN:

1. SRI NITHIN N.GUJJAR
S/O SRI T.A.NARESH BABU
AGED ABOUTO 32 YEARS.

2. SRI MOHITH N.GUJJAR
S/O SRI T.A.NARESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

3. SMT.ROHINI N.GUJJAR
W/O SRI T.A.NARESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF #30,
GROUND FLOOR, II MAIN ROAD
BASAPPA LAYOUT, PATTANAGERE
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 098.
                                         ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI NAGARAJA KUMBLE, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1. SRI GOPAL KRISHNA
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOU 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.7, GOPAL BUILDING
                                                 RFA.No.969/2016

                           2


SHESHADRIPURAM
BANGALOR-560 020.

   2. SMT.SHOBHA
W/O SHASHI NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.2, B.M.SREEKANTIAH ROAD
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
PATTANAGERE, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 098.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI UDAY K.S. FOR SRI C.M.NAGABUSHANA,
ADVOCATE;
 VIDE ORDER DATED 07.08.2019 APPEAL AGAINST R-1
 STANDS DISMISSED FORNOT TAKING STEPS)

      THIS   REGULAR   FIRST   APPEAL    IS    FILED     UNDER

SECTION 96, CPC PRAYIING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT

AND   DECREE    DATED    18.03.2016      PASSED     IN    O.S.

NO.6831/2009 ON THE FILE OF XXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &

SESSINSJUDGEAT      BANGALORE     CITY        (CCH-23)    AND

CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SUIT IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING

HEARING, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                        RFA.No.969/2016

                               3


                         JUDGMENT

Learned counsel from both side and appellant nos.1 to

3 and respondent no.2 as identified by their respective

learned counsels are physically present.

2. Both the parties have jointly filed a compromise

petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 reporting the terms of compromise in this

matter.

3. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel from

both side who made their submissions on the lines of the

compromise petition and pray this Court to approve the

compromise petition and dispose of this appeal as

compromised between the parties. The parties who are

physically present were also enquired by this Court who have

also reiterated the terms of compromise. On enquiry, the

Court is convinced that the parties have settled the matter

with their free consent and out of their own volition. The

terms of compromise as set out in the compromise petition RFA.No.969/2016

at paragraphs 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e) and 5(f) since are

in accordance with law, the same can be accepted and

approved, however, subject to payment of additional Court

Fee, stamp duty and registration required, if any.

4. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of

as compromised between the parties as per the terms of the

compromise petition. Paragraphs 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e)

and 5(f) shall become part of the compromise decree. The

liability to pay any Court Fee for the relief of declaration as

stated in the compromise petition at paragraph 5(e) or the

requirement of registration, if any, are to be in accordance

with law.

5. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A.

No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

vgh*