Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj Ganapati Bhat Alias Madguni vs F M Ganapati Parameshwar Bhat Since ... on 1 February, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2269
WP No. 100098 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 100098 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJ GANAPATI BHAT @ MADGUNI
AGED 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PETTY BUSINESS,
R/O. SABGERI, YELLAPUR 581359
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S V YAJI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
F M GANAPATI PARAMESHWAR BHAT
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
1. SMT. JAYASHREE VENKATARAMAN HEGDE,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
C/O. V N HEGDE,(ONGC),
YASHAVANT
PLOT NO.12, GURUDATTA COLONY,
NARAYANKAR
VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI 580023
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT 2. SMT. VINAYA DINAKAR HEGDE
NARAYANKAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
C/O. DINAKAR V HEGDE, DOOR NO.12,
SAI HOUSING SOCIETY, SECTOR 12,
KHARGAR, NEW MUMBAI 400017
3. NAGARATNA KOM GANAPATI BHAT
AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SABGERI, YELLAPUR 581359
4. VENUGOPAL GANAPATI BHAT
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR,
R/O. SABGERI, YELLAPUR 581359
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2269
WP No. 100098 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA
NO. VII (IA NO. XII) DATED. 02/12/2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRI9NCIPAL JMFC YELLAPUR IN O.S. NO.
4/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION.
CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT IA
NO. VII (IA NO. XII) VIDE ANNEXURE-D MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari and quash
the impugned order on I.A.No.VII(IA No. XII)
dated: 02.12.2023 passed by the Principal Senior
Civil Judge and Principal JMFC Yellapur in
O.S.No.4/2014 vide Annexure-G to the writ
petition. Consequently, the application filed by
the petitioner at IA No.VII(IA No. XII) vide
Annexure-D may kindly be allowed.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus , direction to the court
below to pass appropriate orders on the
application filed by the petitioner under the facts
and circumstances of the case to meet the ends
of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner had filed a suit in OS No.12/1999,
which subsequently came to be renumbered and is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2269
now pending as OS No.4/2014 before the Principal
Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Yellapur. The
suit was initially dismissed and challenged by the
petitioner in RA No.16/2007. The petitioner had filed
an application in IA No.7 therein under Order 23 Rule
3 seeking for a decree to be passed in terms of the
alleged family settlement.
3. During the pendency of the said suit, the sisters who
were parties to the suit had filed another suit in OS
No.32/2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur
seeking for partition and declaration. RA No.16/2007
came to be allowed, the matter was remanded to a
trial Court to pass appropriate orders on IA No.7 filed
under Order 23 Rule 3.
4. The respondents having challenged the same in MSA
No.678/2013, the said MSA was allowed. The
judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the
matter remanded to trial Court for holding an enquiry
on IA No.7 and Order 23 Rule 3 as regard the alleged
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2269
settlement. The trial Court rejected the said
application challenging the same, the petitioner is
before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
5. The application under Order 23 Rule 3 has been filed
by the petitioner and only signed by the petitioner
alleging that there is an agreement entered between
all the parties which compromises the disputes. In
my considered opinion Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code
Civil procedure speaks of a situation where it is
proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has
been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful
agreement or compromise in writing, signed by the
parties.
6. There is a requirement for the compromise petition
to be filed which is signed by all the parties. The
dispute allegedly in the present matter being in
regard to an agreement entered into outside Court
and not inside Court, such agreement cannot be a
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2269
subject matter of an application in Order 23 Rule 3,
when it is denied by certain of the parties.
7. The parties having denied the execution of the
agreement, the agreement having been entered into
outside court and not in Court, I am of the
considered opinion that petition under Order 23 Rule
3 is not maintainable by one of the parties and no
order could be passed under Order 23 Rule 3
accepting an agreement allegedly entered outside
Court to be a compromise in the matter.
8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any
merit in the present matter. The petition stands
dismissed.
9. The trial Court to proceed with the trial of the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
