K.Sreedhara Reddy vs Smt.Vimala Clement
2021 Latest Caselaw 5869 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

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

                R.F.A. No. 530 OF 2015
BETWEEN:

K.SREEDHARA REDDY
S/O H KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.823, HOODI,
RAJAPALYA,
MAHADEVAPURA POST,
BANGALORE-560 048.
                                          ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI P.D.SURANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SMT.VIMALA CLEMENT
    W/O MR CLEMENT BARNABAS,
    AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
    RESIDING AT NO.49,
    SRINATH RESIDENCE II ,
    ADALAJ-0382421
    GANGAHINAGAR
    GUJARAT

   REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER,
   SMT MARY KALPANA JOSTNA,
   D/O N C BARNABAS,
   RESIDING AT NO.58, 4TH A CROSS,
   KANAKANAGARA, R T NAGAR POST,
                                                  RFA.No.530/2015

                               2


    BANGALORE-560 032.
                                               ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR C FOR
 SRI B.V.MALLA REDDY , ADVOCATE)

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96, CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 31.3.2015 PASSED IN O.S.
NO.7571/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF XII ADDL.
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-27)
BENGALURU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

Learned counsel from both side are physically present.

The appellant and the General Power of Attorney holder of

the respondent, as identified by their respective counsels, are

also physically present in the Court.

2. Both side have filed a joint memo under Order XXIII

Rule 3, C.P.C. reporting a compromise between themselves

duly signed by their respective advocates. Registry has

verified and scrutinized the said petition and has not raised RFA.No.530/2015

any objection. As such, the compromise petition can be

proceeded with.

3. After narrating certain aspects which are to the

exclusive knowledge of the parties, both the parties have

prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated

31.03.2015 passed in O.S. No.7571/2011 which is impugned

in this appeal. Learned counsel from both side also submit

that the parties have understood the consequences and have

entered into the compromise from their free consent and out

of their own volition. Both the parties have been enquired

and they submit and pray for dismissal of the judgment and

decree which is impugned in this appeal. Thus, this Court is

convinced that the parties have compromised the matter in

their mutual and best interest.

4. In the light of the above, considering the terms of

the compromise, suffice to say that setting aside the

impugned judgment and decree can alone be accepted as the

compromise entered into between the parties. As such, the RFA.No.530/2015

compromise petition confining to the prayer of setting aside

the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.03.2015

passed in O.S. No.7571/2011 is allowed and the said

judgment and decree stands set aside. Consequently, the

original suit stands dismissed.

5. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of as

compromised. In view of the disposal of the main appeal as

compromised, I.A. Nos.1/2015 and 2/2015 do not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

vgh*