Sri Dr R S Venkateshulu vs Sri Dr Vijayanand
2022 Latest Caselaw 10105 Kant

                             1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                            AND

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

             REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1195/2021

BETWEEN:

SRI DR. R S VENKATESHULU
S/O S ANAND SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF
M/S JEEVANI MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,
R/AT NO.10, S.N. PET, 1ST CROSS,
2ND LINE, BELLARY-583101.
                                             ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI KUMARA, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SRI DR. SHAILENDRA MANSUR
       S/O SHANTHRAJ MANSUR
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.14398/D 21ST CROSS,
       4TH MAIN, 7TH SECTOR,
       H.S.R. LAYOUT,
       BANGALORE-560 102.

2.     M/S JEEVANI HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS,
       SARVODAYA HOSPITAL,
       HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.7/25,
       5TH CROSS, AIRPORT ROAD,
       OPPOSITE CHURCH VIDYANAGAR,
       BELLARY-58310
                            2


     REP. BY ITS MEDICAL DIRECTOR
     AND MANAGING PARTNER
     SRI DR R S VENKATESHULU

3.   SRI ANIL RAJA SHEKAR CHUNDUR
     S/O BHASKAR ROA CHUNDUR
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.101, WESLEY MANOR,
     RUSTHUOM BHAG,
     NEXT TO MANIPAL HOSPITAL,
     BENGALURU-560 017
     AND ALSO AT 2ND CROSS,
     KAPPAGAL ROAD,
     VISHVESHWARAIAH NAGAR,
     BELLARY-583101

4.   SRI SYED YOUNUS
     S/O SYED ABDUL SATTAR,
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
     R/AT 2ND CROSS,
     KAPPAGAL ROAD,
     VISHVESHWARAIAH NAGAR
     BELLARY-583101

5.   SRI MURALI KRISHNA
     S/O NOT KNOWN
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     R/AT KHAJA COMPLEX
     NO.32.K, RAHIM MANZIL,
     INFANTRY ROAD, CONTONMENT ROAD,
     BELLARY -583103

6.   M/S JEEVANI MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD.,
     SARVODAYA HOSPITAL,
     HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.7/25
     5TH CROSS, AIRPORT ROAD,
     OPPOSITE CHURCH VIDYANAGAR,
     BELLARY-58310,
     REP. BY ITS MEDICAL DIRECTOR
     SRI. DR. R. S. VENKATESHULU
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.V.MANJUNATHA, ADV. FOR C/R1.)
                                  3


     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2021 PASSED IN
OS.No.1562/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR "ORDERS"
THIS DAY, P. N. DESAI J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

Appellant and respondent No.1 are present before the

Court. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1 are present.

2. Both, the appellant and respondent No.1 are

identified by their respective counsel. They have filed a

Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code

of Civil Procedure. They have signed the Compromise

Petition voluntarily without any undue influence.

3. The compromise petition reads as under:-

"APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,

The appellant and respondent No1 most respectfully submit as follow:

1. The appellant and respondent No.1 submit that respondent No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.1563/2013 against the appellant and

Respondents 2 to 6 for recovery of Rs 15,22,878/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Twenty-

Two Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-Eight only) before the VII ADDL. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH NO.19) at Bengaluru and the suit is decreed with cost on 23.07.2021. It is further ordered and directed that the defendants to pay Rs 15,22,878/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Twenty-Two Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-Eight only) along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.

2. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 23.07.2021, passed in O.S.No.1563/202013 by the VII ADDL. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.19) at Bangalore, the appellant has filed this appeal against the respondent No.1 and others, before this Hon'ble court and challenged the decree by restricting to the extent of his liability i.e., in respect of the 1/4th share of decretal amount. However, the appellant has not sought any relief against the respondents 2 to 6 and they are formal parties to this appeal.

3. The appellant and respondent No.1, on the advice of elders and well-wishers, have fully

compromised their dispute on the following terms and conditions;-

4. As a gesture to this compromise the appellant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) to the respondent No.1 by way of cash on this day before this Hon'ble Court and the respondent No.1 has acknowledged the same and affixed the signature to this compromise as full and final settlement to the extent of liability of this appellant.

5. That both the parties have agreed that this compromise between the appellant and respondent No.1 only and to the extent of liability of this appellant. Therefore, this compromise is not binding on the respondent

is the hospital it was represented by

herein and now the hospital is not in existence. The appellant has agreed that he has no objection to file execution petition by respondent No.1 for recovery of rest of the decretal amount excluding liabilities of the appellant herein.

6. The respondent No.1 hereby declares and admits that, the appellant has settled his part of liability as full and final settlement and the respondent No.1 has no claim whatsoever from the appellant in future in view of the compromise.

Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to draw the decree in terms of the compromise petition and set aside the judgement and decree dated 23.07.2021 to the extent of liability of the appellant or 1/4th share of decretal amount pertaining to the appellant in the interest of justice equity and law.

          Sd/-                               Sd/-
  Advocate for appellant                   Appellant

          Sd/-                            Sd/-
  Advocate for Respondent No.1         Respondent No.1

                    VERIFICATION

Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best of our knowledge information and belief.

Bangalore                                 Sd/-
Date: 01.07.2022                        Appellant

                                          Sd/-
                                     Respondent No.1"

4. We have perused the Compromise Petition and

the parties after reading the same, admit the terms of

compromise as true and correct. We are satisfied that the

compromise is free and voluntary and the same is lawful.

The Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is

accepted. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in terms of the

compromise petition. The appeal in respect of other

respondents is dismissed as not pressed.

5. Office is directed to draw up the decree in terms

of the compromise petition.

Office to refund the admissible Court Fee in

accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees

and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, to the appellant.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE dn/- CT-HR