IN THE HIGH coum ore' KARNATAKA AT BANGALOl?E}«_ DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2oos...Efl': ~ BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE S;.'JABDUL"NAZEAE'I?__ RE _I_ _;=AR - IR'-'-T A- PEAL 9512I2r_x_:7 BETWEEN : N.P. Subbaiah S/o. N.T.Poova1'a11 __ A Aged about 46 years _ ' No.66. Ground Fioozfi ' Central Street 2 Kumam Par1:"'iVc..=.st~--.. ' __ ._ g M n............I....... 'I:'£n- nan . V : ' Anna'! I' AI\Irr\ Dang u C -' '_ " i ... nrrlz.-uunul AND : Sri. v.- Harisfi' zmmér Age;i'~i21boi1t41 years. _____ " S] O;E'*]ate"LD. K. 'Vasudcva Rao No}3.15,., V1"? F1QGzf_ Bafigalore 560003 RESPONDENT
‘ .V (Byfixfi: Péupixeddy, Adv.)
4…. 4.4.; .-I~…._,; ” .+IT-m
-m..: . . . _ …..1 .. ‘ 4′
11113 uypcm ufiig Gfi 101’ auuuasxuu u.ua u..a._~,.,_ ‘gun.-V
court delivered the following:
This appeal arises out of thc:=._j4udgm.énf’e3hd
O.S. No.4973/2005 dated O6′.G9_._200;7*.ph
Addl. City Civil Judge (ccH.:;>5)’; aangamag The
appellants was the suit and the
zespondent was the hy the plaintiff
was for e3ee*m….;_;e1: cf 6.e.en..’;..V . –..-‘.-.*9.= L… 513..- s-he_.I_._e
property. ‘iTfhefi__t;;oi1fi ‘heVi’~Wp_h’s ‘eered fir suit in L11′
followihg 7 V’ V V
‘ 2 ” is entitled to vacant
possession ‘of …scheduie premises are fufiy
Q ‘ descn’be’el~ the p1.9.1’..11t schedule, mm the
V V. ciefefidsnt ateiwchlefendant shall handover vacant
3 T. passessioh of the suit schedule property to the
‘ six onths from the dte of this
otfie? on failure to do so, plaintiff entitled to
.’11eeover the vacant possession of suit schedule
” pre°””‘ses u”der d”e pmess and machinery of
A law;
‘1.
VA
2. In the circumstances of the case,
parties to bear their own costs. ‘
3. Draw deer ea
2. When the mat’? is tale” 1′ t
he
learned Counsel for the partiessubmit the haVeV V
amicably setfled the matter. Theyhave filed -.ap1$1ication
under Order XXIII Rule» of the
settlement, which are as under: ‘D
“uNneR”d-saoER_…xx11I’-sRneLE%_3Hos C.P.C,
The%__appel1ahtyV_ joinfly submit as
underi it ”
‘ ‘-.V’.”.-..-in….’.= ” …… ….. nnnn …. .. ..
The. at pcus|_11tn fgurd icayuudcut ha?»
amieahly d_i._p_1_te involved in the
4; above at” the intervention of the well
A “d:s–..CWisher~s by agreement on the terms and
it ” -. . hereafter contained.
« The respondent herein had filed
0,3; ._TWo.=’i”7′;’3i2t’)i’15 against the appeflant
seeking a deems .91″ possession in mspeet of the
it ‘ residential premises mentioned hereunder in the
°:Court of III Add1._ City Civil Judge (CC!-I-25),
Bangalore. After hearing both the parties to the
K
“J
\’
suit, the trial court has decreed the suit vide T
judgment and decree dated 6.9.2007. Against
2. The appellant heiehy’ ‘ aeeepts
claim’ of the respondent for va'(3!Fin’i:’.’.A15t9’ssesS_i:i311’pct
the suit schedule pxemises. He also aetepts
correctness and legality léfupilthe judgulent
decree dated 6.9;:’2.00sr.’,~”” has
” ” ‘. ‘fl.
aw d to vacate em’, P19.l}.{i 0′.’$E”x me vac……=mt
possession pf the s.11it’_ to the
Iespondent”;g_t1 er The
respotu.le§1_t_V has’ Vtti time to the
appellant fetj lvlaestlilg suit schedule
V
‘ ‘ ‘:si.’;.. .;_.l’;.11.L.. 1…… .. ….:I.. ….-…. l\
, ‘1ut:.up_yc2gu.1;.t ucu:.b_y uuu::.’:”ta.’n a tu
pay Rs.3,’700_I~ to the
4;I’esponcleut_’1e;<;ul:irly for use and occupation of
uschpedulel pietnises commencing from April
' " 's .. ,20,93fi11:'31_.o3.2oo9.
« The appellant further hereby
ll ' joluntarily vacate and hand over the vacant
–possession of the schedule premises to the
1..
\N
respondent on or before 31.03.2009 withouii”—.»
forcing the respondent to file execution case. ~ V ‘
5. “‘h– ‘ppe%nt com”-“ts any egraurr ” ‘
in paying the m-nt…1y damages of Rs 3 7001- for
two months continuously, thenthe
will be entitled to execute the decree ‘passed 70
o.s. No.4973/2005. -.___In such event, ,1 the 1f;
appellant will not be amuse “:_for
concessionibenefit of gjTa.1;””°’i’J=.iigu”I1z”T’u’i€ i’.~,’.~w-«ac.-.–.~.+.m
G}
the schedule pmmiaes till
6. The he is due
damages’ forV1’use:: of the schedule
prerirrisesp ._:’Q..1iV’.–{)_7.e’.2(liQ5 H 31.03.2008
to (One Lakh Twenty
,T»vo “Thousand One Hundred] and the s–“e ‘s
‘pairl._herf””ith as..””*’der:
ta)’ 9000 dated 4.4.2008 for
Rs.22u,l-00]-‘1 on State Bank of Mysore,
Park”West, Bangalore – 20.
1,5) Post dated Cheque bearing No.317511
0 “dated o4.’o5.2oos for F2s.l,00,000i- tune Lakii}
(team: on Can'””a Bank, Kumara Park west,
The respondent hereby confirms receipt of
the above post dated cheque and the same will
be subject to realisation. The said payment will
U.
‘N
be treated as damages for the period 01.07.2005
to 3l.0–.f2C08.
7′.
1 1-1: ‘In ‘ –
tn case we auove m..,n…o….d cast,” —-
for Rs.1,oo,ooo_/- is dishonoun;q_,p’V:t’-..V/.mg.”‘A
respondent will be entitledjtd “e.xecjA1te:.’:A”tl:teV: ‘
judgment and decree dated 06.09_’.a2007′._p’aseed
in o.s. No.4973/2005 f.rJIt1_1witli’ ape I’eC9Vt2’tj at
vacant possession of the .schedu1e’pI_’emiejesVVV
fi’m th’ ‘ppellant and tlte appeflant be
e..f_i_ed t- _J_1’_m t1]C”b’CL’L1Cf§:tV0f”@fiIlg time of
one year bypthis Hanflélep ‘ 1 _
3., ~].frtte izilcgfifindenfvllfhfisij’ agreed to
refund” ?11¢ 5ér2f;:t1r’iji_3I_: deposit 0f.Ml§s.1,O0,00O/-
(One “toll at the time of
xj’acating.tvt’ne eeheditin ‘ ”
; ‘reeoxdu the * above . terms of settlement and
V ftemlaa the “b*o’v’e appeal by granting the time to
” ~ th_e’appe}1ant for vacating the schedule premises
“.545 I
In the interest of justice.
3 Learned Counsel for the s”b–‘t th-‘t since
Hfixatter has been settled between the parties, the appeal
0′ niay be disposed of in terms of the application for
\X5,
compromise. The appellant and respondent am pxesent
before the Court and they are identified by ~ K
Advocates. It is evident that the par1;1e’ s have”‘ej:g11ed: H
application for compromise a1ong””VWifl1_ ‘–4theirzf1ean1ed
4. Having heani V1ea;’ned’..Coi«tf1eei”fqrtheparirieis, i am
satisfied that the between the
parties is ‘disposed of in
terms of ‘N-emheosts. Draw the
decree ::,{
E