Karnataka High Court
Rao Enterprises vs M/S G V Runwal (Gulabchand ... on 31 January, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
R.S.A.NO.5012/2012 (MON)
C/W
C.R.P.NO.1120/2011
IN R.S.A.NO.5012/2012 (RES)
BETWEEN
M/S G.V.RUNWAL.,
BY ITS PARTNER,
SHEETAL COLLECTIONS,
NATHMAL S/O GULABCHAND RUNWAL,
AGED : 61 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O CTS NO.735,
SRI SIDDESHWAR ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586010.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANTOSH B.MANE,
SRI HEGDE, SRI NEERALGI & PATIL,
SRI K.S.PATIL,
SRI VIJAY M.MALALI, ADVOCATES.)
AND
1. RAO ENTERPRISES,
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
NO.423, III CROSS,
NAZAR CAMP, VADGAON,
BELGAUM THROUGH ITS PARTNER,
N.K.BHIMARAO
S/O H.L.KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGE : 78 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
BELGAUM-590 001.
2. VEERENDRA KUMAR,
2
S/O GULABCHAND RUNWAL,
AGE : 50 YEARS.
3. MAHENDRA KUMAR,
S/O GULABCHAND RUNWAL,
AGE : 48 YEARS.
OCC: BUSINESS.
4. SMT.SUNITA PATEHCHAND,
RUNWAL, AGE: 45,
OCC: BUSINESS.
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4
ARE PARTNERS OF SHEETAL COOLECTIONS,
AND R/O CTS NO.735,
SRI SIDDESHWAR ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586010.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.K.MARUTHI ROA)
SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI ADV. FOR R.1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 PRAYING THIS COURT TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 13.06.2011
PASSED IN R.A.NO.55/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK-I
& ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 17.07.2007 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE IV
ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), BELGAUM IN O.S.NO.1218/1991
BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY THE
SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED.
IN C.R.P.NO.1120/2011
BETWEEN
RAO ENTERPRISES,
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN CARRYING,
ON BUSINESS AT 423,
III CROSS, NAZAR CAMP,
VADGAON, BELGAUM-590 005,
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR,
N.K.BHEEMA RAO,
S/O. H.L.KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS.
...PETITIONER
3
(BY SRI N.K.MARUTHI RAO,
SHRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATES.)
AND
1. M/S G.V.RUNWAL
(GULABCHAND VEERENDRAKUMAR RUNAWAL)
CTS NO.735, SHRI SIDDESWAR ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CARRYING ON BUSINESS
IN TEXTILES REPRESENTED BY THE FOLLOWING
PARTNERS NOW NAMED AS
"SHEETAL COLLECITIONS".
1(A) SHRI NATHMAL GULABCHAND RUNWAL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS.
1(B) SHRI VEERENDRAKUMAR
GULABCHAND RUNWAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS.
1(C) SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR
GULABCHAND RUNWAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS.
1(D) SMT.SUNITA PHOOLCHAND RUNWAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
CTS: 735, SHRI SIDDESHWARROAD,
BIJAPUR-586 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.PATIL & VIJAY M.MALALI, ADVOCATES FOR R.1(A))
(BY SRI SANTOSH B.MANE, ADV. FOR R.1(B-D)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2011 PASSED
BY THE FAST TRACK COURT-I, BELGAUM WHICH IS ANNEXURE-
E AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B TO REMOVE
AMBIGUITY IN THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.06.2011
PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT IN R.A.NO.55/2010, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AND THE CIVIL REVISION
PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
: JUDGMENT :
Office has raised an objection that respondent
Nos.2 to 4 have not signed the joint memo.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit to this Court that, respondent
Nos.2 to 4 are also partners of appellant/Firm and
there is no conflict of interest. He would also submit to
this Court that the Firm has made a payment which
was due to respondent No.1. Along with joint memo
the copy of Demand Draft drawn for sum of
Rs.2,71,000/- in favour of respondent No.1 is also
place on record. Therefore, he would request this
Court to overrule the objections.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/plaintiffs also submit that in terms of
joint memo, entire claim which was due to
respondents is paid to the respondents/plaintiffs
towards full and final settlement.
4. In that view of the matter, he would also
request this Court to dismiss the connected civil
revision petition and the memo is also filed to that
effect on 25.01.2022.
5. In terms of submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and learned
counsel appearing for the respondents, the joint
memo filed by appellants and respondent No.1 duly
signed by the parties as well as their respective
counsel is taken on record.
6. Memo duly signed by the petitioner filed in
the connected civil revision petition is also taken on
record.
7. Both the counsel who are present virtually
would submit to this Court that respective parties have
signed the joint memo in their presence. The said
submission is also placed on record.
8. The second appeal filed in
RSA.No.5012/2012 is disposed of in terms of joint
memo.
9. In view of amicable settlement, the
connected civil revision petition also does not survive
for consideration. Accordingly in terms of memo dated
25.01.2022, the civil revision petition is dismissed as
not pressed.
10. In terms of the joint memo, the bank
guarantee offered by the appellant shall stand
released.
11. Since the matter is amicably settled at the
intervention of the Court, the appellant is entitled for
refund of Court fee in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
EM
