Sunil S/O Tukaram Sambrani vs Shri Gouse Alahajam S/O Kashimsab ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9397 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sunil S/O Tukaram Sambrani vs Shri Gouse Alahajam S/O Kashimsab ... on 25 October, 2025

                                                        -1-
                                                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:14251
                                                               RSA No. 100657 of 2025


                         HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

                              DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                                 BEFORE

                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                       REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100657 OF 2025 (INJ-)

                         BETWEEN:
                         SUNIL S/O. TUKARAM SAMBRANI,
                         AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                         R/O VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE AKKIPETH,
                         SUBHAS ROAD, DHARWAD- 580001.
                                                                               ...APPELLANT
                         (BY SRI. PRANAV UMESH BADAGI, ADVOCATE)
                         AND:
                         1.     SHRI GOUSE ALAHAJAM
                                S/O. KASHIMSAB MAKANDAR
                                @ BABU MAKANDAR,
                                AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                                R/O. VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE, AKKIPETH,
                                SUBHAS ROAD, DHARWAD- 580001.

                         2.     THE COMMISIONER,
YASHAVANT                       HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORTION,
NARAYANKAR                      DHARWAD- 580008.
 Digitally signed by
 YASHAVANT
                                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
 NARAYANKAR
 Date: 2025.10.27
                         (BY SRI. M.G. RAHUT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 10:44:17 +0530
                             SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

                              THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W. ORDER 41 RULE
                         1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE TRIAL COURT RECORDS
                         PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
                         DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.63/2024, DATED 02.06.2025 BY THE 1ST
                         ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD AND
                         CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECRE PASSED IN OS
                         NO.280/2019 DATED 15.07.2024 BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
                         PRINCIPAL JMFC COURT, DHARWAD BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT
                         APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:14251
                                         RSA No. 100657 of 2025


HC-KAR



     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant and respondent No.1 are present along with

their learned counsels.

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2/Commissioner, Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation,

Dharwad is also present.

3. The appellant and respondent No.1 filed a

compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC recording

the settlement reached between the appellant and respondent

No.1. By virtue of the settlement, respondent No.1 has agreed to

remove the obstruction (pillar) placed by him in the gutter

involved in the lis. By virtue of this settlement, the judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court seems to be restored to some

extent.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits

that, he being the formal party in the lis, it is agreeable for him,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14251

HC-KAR

if respondent No.1 removes the obstruction placed on the gutter

and it would not affect his rights in any way.

5. On questioning respondent No.1, he submits that

contents of the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of

CPC is explained to him. The parties acknowledge the contents of

the same. Respondent No.1 confirms that he will remove the

obstruction placed on the gutter. Therefore, the compromise

being just proper and legal, the same is accepted. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed.

ii) The impugned judgment of the First Appellate

Court is set aside.

iii) This appeal is disposed of in terms of the

compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule

3 of CPC.

iv) Decree be drawn as per the compromise petition

and the compromise petition shall be part of the

decree.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14251

HC-KAR

v) The appeal against respondent No.2 is

dismissed.

SD/-

(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

SSP CT:PA