Karnataka High Court
R Madaiah vs Sri Nagaraj on 29 August, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:30970
RSA No. 431 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.431 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. R MADAIAH
S/O LT RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
2. M RAVISHAKARA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
3. M VIJAY KUMAR
S/O R MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
4. SMT C T SHILPA
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T W/O M VIJAYKUMAR
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT HOUSE No.13 OF
MADHUVANA SURVEY No.69
SRI HARISHCHANDRA ROAD
SHANKARAMUTT EXTENTIN
MYSORE - 570004
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SRINIVASA REDDY R V, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:30970
RSA No. 431 of 2022
AND:
1. SRI NAGARAJ
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YERS
2. SRI N RAKSHIT
S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT HOUSE No.13
OF MADHUVANA SURVEY No.69
SRI HARSICHANRA ROAD
SHANKARAMUTT EXTENSION
MYSURU - 570004
3. SMT.PREMA
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
W/O SRI RAMALINGU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
4. SRI PRABHU
S/O RAMALINGU
AGE: MAJOR
5. SRI MAHESHA
RAMALINGU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE
R/AT HOUSE No.3/1
6TH CROSS ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD
SRI CHANDRAMOULEESHWARA
TEMPLE ROAD
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU-570009
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:30970
RSA No. 431 of 2022
6. SMT. NANJAMMA @ SAVITHRAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAIHA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/T HOUSE No.13
OF MADHUVANA SURVEY No.69
SRI HARISHCHANDRA ROAD
SHANKARAPURAMUTT EXTENSION
MYSURU - 570004
7. SRI MAHALINGAIAH
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
R/T HOUSE NO,13 OF
MADHUVANA SURVEY No.69
SRI HARISCHANDRA ROAD
SHANKARAPURAMUTT EXTENSION
MYSURU-570004
...RESPONDENTS
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2021
PASSED IN R.A.No.81/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:30970
RSA No. 431 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated
16.12.2021 passed in R.A.No.81/2021 wherein confirmed
the order dated 31.01.2020 passed on I.A.No.4 by the
Trial Court. I.A.No.4 was filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)
and (d) of CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint as the
same is barred by law and there is no cause of action. In
support of the said application, an averment is made that
in FDP No.8/2011, the parties themselves have entered
into a compromise and a right was provided to them in
terms of the said compromise. Once the parties have
compromised the matter, they cannot file a separate suit
challenging the said compromise and seek for an order.
The appellants herein have filed an objections to the said
I.A.No.4. The Trial Court having considered the material
on record comes to the conclusion that a separate suit is
not maintainable and the parties of the compromise shall
NC: 2023:KHC:30970
RSA No. 431 of 2022
prefer an application in the said suit only and the plaintiffs
are barred from bringing a new suit challenging the said
compromise and they are at liberty to challenge it before
the Court in which compromise was entered. Hence,
I.A.No.4 was allowed and plaint was rejected. Being
aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by
the plaintiffs before the First Appellate Court and the First
Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged
in the appeal and also considering the provision of Order
XXIII Rule 3(a) of CPC where there is a specific bar to file
a separate suit challenging the compromise, dismissed the
appeal and hence, the present second appeal is filed
before this Court challenging the order of the First
Appellate Court and the Trial Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that in terms of the compromise, a
right is provided to the parties and both the Courts have
committed an error in allowing the application filed under
Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and the said
NC: 2023:KHC:30970
RSA No. 431 of 2022
impugned order is misconstruing the provisions of Order
VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and also Order XXIII Rule
3(a) of CPC as well as Section 96.
4. Having perused the material on record as well
as the submission of the counsel for the appellants, it is
not in dispute that there was a decree in FDP No.8/2011 in
terms of the compromise entered between the parties. It
is also not in dispute that a separate suit was filed
challenging the order of compromise which was passed in
FDP No.8/2011 and defendants appeared and filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC
stating that there is no cause of action and the plaint is
barred by law. In view of Order XXIII Rule 3(a) of CPC
there is a bar to file a separate suit questioning the
compromise and the same can be urged in the very same
proceedings before the very same Court by filing a
necessary application. The said observation is made by
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also taking
into note of the provision of Order XXIII Rule 3(a) of CPC
NC: 2023:KHC:30970
RSA No. 431 of 2022
comes to the conclusion that separate suit is not
maintainable to challenge the compromise and rightly
rejected the appeal. Having considered the submissions of
the counsel and also on perusal of the material on record,
this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts have not
committed any error by taking note of Order XXIII Rule
3(a) of CPC which bars filing of a separate suit challenging
the compromise and in allowing the application filed under
Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC in coming to the
conclusion that there is no separate cause of action and
the same is barred by law. Hence, no grounds are made
out by the appellants to admit the appeal and to frame the
substantial questions of law.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
