Karnataka High Court
Y Krishna Murthy S/O Y Ramakrishna ... vs Smt B S Vijaya Lakshmi on 27 June, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24296
RFA No. 2041 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
RFA NO. 2041 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
1. Y KRISHNA MURTHY,
S/O Y RAMAKRISHNA SHASTHRI,
R/A # 213, 24TH CROSS,
6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
2. SMT H SUDHA,
W/O Y KRISHNA MURTHY,
R/A # 213, 24TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S SMT B S VIJAYA LAKSHMI,
Location: High AGED 48 YEARS,
Court of Karnataka
RESIDIN AT HOUSE NO 90/2,10TH CROSS,
3RD BLOCK, THYAGARAJA NAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 028.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SATHYA NARAYANA GOPAL RAO, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.1.6.2007 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.2964/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24296
RFA No. 2041 of 2007
JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF
MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter was listed for consideration of
I.A nos. 2/2024, 3/2024 and 4/2024 wherein, order dated
07.11.2023, 20.03.2023 and 27.02.2024 respectively are
sought to be recalled. Learned counsel for appellants submits
that matter was listed by showing name of M/s. Vagdevi
Associates instead showing name of counsel appearing for
appellants. It is submitted there was settlement between
parties, for reporting settlement, seeks for recalling above
orders.
2. On perusal of order sheet, it is seen that on
20.03.2023 appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution for
non-appearance. Subsequently, application was filed.
However, on ground that there was no signature of
appellant no.2, I.A came to be rejected. Thereafter, yet another
application was filed. Even said applications suffered from
NC: 2024:KHC:24296
defects and there was no appearance on behalf of appellants,
said application came to be rejected on 27.02.2024.
3. In affidavits filed in support of applications reasons
stated are that, cause list did not reflect correct name of
counsel for appellants. Said assertion is not controverted by
counsel for respondent.
4. Considering submissions made by learned counsel
for appellants, I.A nos.2 to 4/2024 are allowed, subject to
payment of Rs.1,000/- to Karnataka Advocate Clerks'
Benevolent Trust Fund within one week.
5. A joint memo signed by both parties is appended to
compromise petition. Terms of compromise petition are as
follows:
"(1) The 1st party agreed to make payment
of Rs.40,000 to the 2nd party as full and final
settlement of her claim.
(2) The 2nd party agreed to receive the
amount as agreed and payment of the amount
will be in the following manner.
(3) The 1st party hereby giving hereby giving
4 post-dated cheques Rs.10,000/- each the
details of which are furnished below which he
undertakes to honor the cheque as he is
getting pension every month.
NC: 2024:KHC:24296
(a) Cheque No.431443 drawn
on SBI, jayanagar Branch for a
sum of Rs.10,000/- dated
10/01/2024.
(b) Cheque No.431444 drawn
on SBI, Jayanagar Branch for a
sum of Rs.10,000/- dated
10/02/2024.
(c) Cheque No.431445 drawn
on SBI, Jayanagar Branch for a
sum of Rs.10,000/- dated
10/03/2024.
(d) Cheque No.431446 drawn
on SBI, Jayanagar Branch for a
sum of Rs.10,000/- dated
10/04/2024.
(4) The 2nd party agreed to receive the
above said 4 cheques and after honor of
the cheque she will not have any claim
against the appellants. If the cheques are
not honored as agreed above she is at
liberty to take such action OR report to
the Hon'ble High Court for re-opening of
the matter."
6. Parties are present and though caveator counsel for
respondent no.1 is absent, counsel for appellant identifies both
parties.
7. On interaction, they stated that terms of
compromise are explained to them and after understanding
same, they affirmed it, out of their free will and volition without
NC: 2024:KHC:24296
there being any threat, coercion or undue influence from
anybody.
8. In terms of compromise, respondent - Smt. B S
Vijaylakshmi acknowledged receipt of entire agreed amount of
Rs.40,000/-
9. I have perused terms of settlement. Same are
found to be lawful.
10. Compromise petition is taken on record. Appeal is
allowed to extent and in terms of compromise petition,
judgment and decree of both Courts are modified accordingly.
Registry to draw decree incorporating terms of
compromise and forthwith refund admissible Court fee.
Sd/-
JUDGE
THM
