-1...
In THE man center or KARHATAKA A1' f if r.- %
DATED THIS THE wk DAY OF' ;gqQUs*r,.--20£>é§j «
BEFORE
mm H(}N'BLE MR.JUS'l'ICE'S5ABI§L{L"NAZEl§R; 3
R.F'.A.NC}.574 ow " '
BETWEEN:
SRI.GUMAN SINGH. ' _ -
S/O LATE sR1.HAB*1';3,,.51 ~ _
AGED ABOUT 4§*'Y,EA,RS.'' ,; " '
SHOP No.2 INTHE'PR01~"ER'FY.I\§e.,.,:£§1f:;' A
10TH MAW-,%-VIJAYANAGAR,' '
BANGALU:RE~560;{)_4O _ h' _ APPELLANT
(By Sri R B sA£>As:\fAié:éA;';ag:>s3;;---
AND:
I "~sRA:.3,.§§A~iAi<1é1's:HNA
S--,'_G"S_RI s.=:§Aw,1A%a SI-E3'i"i'Y
AGED" AI3(}EJ"i?.,5§*.VY'1.?.ARS
- R]A N'0;3057,=.11rrH MAIN,
VIJAYR-NAGAQA,
B.5NGAL£}RE~560 040 RESPGNDENT
B SHIVA KUMAR, ADV. FOR C] R)
THIS RFA IS FILEI3 {US 96 cape AGAINST THE
""V;§ijDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED: 22.4.2009 PASSED IN
«0.S.N0.10554/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XIE AD{)L.(IlITY
CIVIL 85 SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CETY,
(CCH.N().27), PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
EJECZTMENT AND MESNE PROFITS
-2...
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
BAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: e H e
JUneMENT,__
This appeal is directed against the ;eeeeeeee'eeeee eeAj'
decree in O.S.Ne.1{)554/2006 '22e4..__2{)€)9»"._:ofi:VVtE:e
file of the 12th add}. (fity cm: Juc}e",i..Baf1ga1ore§
2. The appeflant is suit
and the respomieet filed by the
plaintifi "' t1'1._eW'cV1efeI1dant and for
deteI'Ininatiei1,VVef The court: below has
directed defeeidefit in vacate and deiiver vacant
_s11i1:'V§f'eV1:uises within sixty days from
the 'bf anti decree. It has further
T' 'eV3 <Viireeteei""«f0r separate enquiry for recovery of
' b3fMa?.eLy ef mesne profits under Order 20 Rule
L A e 1 :2 of Civil Procedure.
3. when the matter is taken up today for
admission, learned counsel for the parties submit that
r'
-3-
the matter has been amicably settled by the
They have filed an application under Qmr 23 sfof L: s
the Code of Civil Procedure T _
settlement which are as 1.mder:=i _V
"The parties to ..appg~.;a1
submit as follows: " _ 1 , A H
1. The parties to the
that the V' flit: above
appeal .__.S:3tt1ad:l v hem;-en the
at the
i;t1teifijareI_11:';i[cAiI'T1'g§;x:_' and the We11~
wisffirsfi in {Lbs
2. The.._VAppe11ajt/.t,e;nant has agreed 1:0
. vaisaite. and "'dsޤrer':'vacant possession of the
?fé'r{',¥1"££§§1111(B H "" 'shop premises to the
.. or before tile and of April
iflas also ageed to pay the
V @ Rs.8()0/-- per meat}: to the
n rsspfifident can or before 53' 0f each cakzndar
' M fllcsuth.
3. The. Appenant submits that he has
paid the rent/damages for the scheduie
premises txptzydate to the respondent and
-4…
the appellant has agreed to receive the
advance amount of Rs.8,000/– from the
respcndentj landlord on the date the
appellant vaeates and delivers vaeefit ~ ‘
possession of the suit scheduk: M
premises to the respondent.
4. The Appellant submits that “ha f
other claim’ s against the reefionderafi. ‘
5. The that he
hae I10 td upto 303* April
20 to –to “vacate and deliver
vaeaitzt suit schedule shop
premisee’ tcjjthe’ respefident
A ‘ 6., Eeéspondent/landlord also agrees to
tl;aé}j=g'”éu:Iva:1ee amount of Rs.8,0<.)0/–
Tfhousand only) to the appellant
texxarfi: on the date the appellant vacate-5 and
" "f Vdeiivers vacant pessession of the suit
"SCAhedule shop 1:;-remisee to the respondent.
TV 7. The Respondent admits that he has
received the rent] damages upto-«date from
the appellant and further agrees to rewive
the rent/ damages '@ Rs.80f)/– per month.
i
'am
8. The Reswndent submits that in View
of the amicable settlement between A4
appellant and himself, the respondent ‘ * ‘~ .;.
not claim the me-sne profits i;’mm._
appellant and that the re$pv5iideI1tt_v11as’ _V
other claims against the appeiiant _t A’
9. The parties to the
that they have no egahxst eecli
other. ‘
H the xeifetlmstanoes, the
partfiee to pray that this
Hon’bie..__Ce1iit ijplema to modify the
V in terms of the above
” _ Ajjetition, in the interest of
A ‘Thetjappeilaxit above named prays that
‘He:fi’ble Ccmrt be pleased te order for
V ef Court fee to him in accordance
3 , few, in the interest of justice and
equity.”
4. The appeilant as ales the respondent anti their
‘ iearneé Acivecates are preeent before the Court. ?erusal
lk
%5′:’
ix}
\
-5-
of the application shows that the parties
learned Advocates have sigled the:-: $91116.
the learned Counsel far the pazties, i’
the Coznpromise entered into
lawful, just and reasonablvtxjt .
5.111 the of
in terms czf the the
parties. The of tile court
below stanéis No costs
Sd/-.
Iudgé