1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT
AT DHARWAD
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2002;’ f J”
BEFORE
THE Homsm MR. Jus’r1c;EAu;’_ m:naAR~ :’ «
Writ Petition No.
Between:
Svcnkatesh , .. " S/o late S V ' 84 years H i__ " ' ._ A Businessman» Residing Hear A H
Vijayanag-f-it Cnllcgc ” ‘-~ % V’
Hospet ”
Bcllary E)istrié{.__’ VA _ ‘ _ ” , …Petifioncr
3:1’ Jayévaatai Rae Kolar, Senior Counsel
2 ‘ _ _ “for S11″. M. Gurutaj, Advocate)
. Sfd «J G Lingappa
1_ . _12_=hWax~d, om Medar Road
Hospet
Bcllary District E/X”
2 J G Pampapathi
S/o J G Liagappa
45 years
1293 Ward, 01:! Medar Road
Hospet
Bcll.a1y District …Respo11dcn_fs
(By Sri V M Sheelavant, Advocate] H ‘ L.
This Writ Petition is filed uad¢:rVarti<fk1:sfjv226'a.fid i3u?'?'_ of, .'
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the o:\cEcr,vpas3e.;1. " –.
by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.I)n)'_ Hospc_t,'.9n IA»'I'-39.5 in GS"
No.188/2005, dated I7-O7-2008 pméuccd "a.s__ "
This Writ Petition céming frog; cfiagm this éay, the
Court made the: following: ' 1 A.
9…%;L;.;:.;>…@._I.a
This is ‘§%»;;3a2nfifi*s’.sa&r:§:~i’pctitson. He has challenged in.
wgépgigiaign sxfdm’ passad by the ma; Court on 17¢
Jg1lyV ’20G8-,_v the compromise pctitkm mm by the
V defendant.
V ” * phintififiksd a suit fin’ specific pcxformancc of
of sale dated 17.03.2000 and for execution of the
T and delivery sf possession against the dciiendants.
R/.
After service of summons, the first deft:-ndmt entered into a
compromise with the plaintifi”s. An appkication under”
23 Rule 3 91′ cm duly signed by the plaintiff and ”
as well as the first defendant md his CounscE..fi£fa§ 9
Court whcreunder the first defendang
sale deed intcrms of the agreemgnt ‘V
defendant who was duly served
he was placed expartc -p.()stt’E'(‘iVv’f<3$'A'VV CX}3£iJ'f£
evidence. The second fikzci
application to 'éfiside {he experts and
pennit ta The oxticr placing him
expartc waé. z;1s.Vis'.,*.Lc:.',a statement fiicd by him was
_. £in~recoI{i; written statement, he denied the
the suit to be dismissed. However,
October, 2006, he exccutr-,c1 a salt: deed
M' in faviiur efthapzajnfiam so fiaras his share in the pmperty
" along with his mmim Thereafter, the piainfifi
copy of the sale deed brinfing to the notice of the
% the subsequent dzvclapment and in fact he did not want
" decree against the second defendant. In those
x/
4
circumstances, only thing the Court was expected to do was to
pass a decree in terms of the compromise petition filed which
is duly sificd by the plaintifi and his Counsel. i:1stcaéi–..»of
msorfing to the aforesaid legal procedure, it A. V
evidence: on merits as the second defendant H
agreement in qucsfion. Plaintifi’ was V
defendant was examined and he i*cs’;<;
witnesses. No and' cncc was bct1al;f__ –
defendant. Thereafter, thtfit. trial hfim
decree can be passed by of first
dcfendanf Court: ought to have rejected
the compmifiigé he took exception to his
. in evidence of the parties and
the compromise petitixan. Aggricved
by" thé .sa__ xi" V plamfifiis before this Couxt.
Sri. Jayavittai Ran Kolar, ltsarnmi Counsel
‘app$a1’ing for the petitioner assaiiing the impugned order
‘A “demands that when the firs: defendant has duly cxccutcd the
compromise petition which is also duly signed by ,V
the H131′ Court ought to have recorded the K
passed a decree against the first defcsidam. {he V’
second defendant is concerned s§ég§em¢n.t ‘\§s§3:fl*~./.:
filed denying the ageement, s’dbeequentiy,»__he– {he
sale deed in favour of the piafenfiii. wam.a_e suit
to be dismissed as against; Instead of
passing the decree recorded and
uitimatzely g§,[diii;:ga1 and contrazy
to the 23 Rule 3 ope and
thereforeflle set aside.
the ksalned Counsel for the
respe-3;;3.en£;”*«:;_e.;’.d’x’¢iefcndant–1 submits that though the first
_defenda:3;t..__” A executed a compromise petitrion, second
” ” has exwum a reglsteted sale deed in favour of
The said eompmmise and the sale deed am now
% -.th_e.}subject matter of a separate compnehensivc suit: where the
~ edefeztzdant have alleged fraud against the plainfifi and seeking
1:/
appropriate reieif. His gievanoe was that though”
defendant stepped into the Witness box, gave H
examined two witnesses, his evidex1ce”ié
the final order Passed by the (30’11’t :*hé’e~§mp1vmsr”
pefition is unexceptionable ar§{i.._VL:’L”therefo1e__ he for
dismissal of the writ petition…’
5. ‘plaoed on meord it is
clear that entered into a
coxnpromiae into writing, signed by the
parties” 3 and in the Court. The second
_ defendafif eontcs’ux1_:V”t1ae etzit Subsequently, he setfled the
«fine sale deed. Copy of the sale deed was
Court ané piaintifi” made a request to
dismiss the so far as second defendant is concemeci as
W action did not survive by virtue of the execution
VA deed. in those circumstances, all that the Court
to have done is to see whether the compromise
Ipmscnted before it is lawful and if it is convinced that it is
lawful and duly executed by the parties, to pass a ,,
terms of the compromise. There was no scope for K
evidence. At any rate, in View of t,*.1’e”‘ events-,
recording of evidence was WhoflyVunneL*eoogijvf.
the trial Court that when once; of the filed
Written statement denying aiiégavfioné, the
compmmise petition is cannot be
recozded, is withoutiagoy can record
compromise of in a suit if
the said the claim of the
plaintiff fa–x”‘a,e concerned. Evidence is to
be I’£3COI'(1f3(£l”‘-.(“‘L)IJL}\_Sv7 ‘in of the defendants who are
_ _conte$i:’_§;og the cIai:.r1_V{V (313 that gonad the compromise petition
‘I been rejected. In that View of the matter, the
be sustained. Hence, it is quashed.
_Accordingly’,’ I. the following order:
2 V» ; petition is allowed. The impugned order passed
Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted
” to the mat Court with a diredion to the learned trial Judge
to consider the compromise petition; to find out whether it is
5/
8
duly executed or not and then find out whether it is or
not’ and thereqfler pms appropriate orders stnbtly in A’
Order 23 Rule 3 CPC’.
kspf«~