EN THE HECEH comm' OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALr;{Rg
DATED mas THE 27TH DAY OF N0vEMBE:2«~~2Qc{8_'__%- "
BEFOR¥§
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'TICE K.3'.§{E:S§:AvAre2AR_A'm;jI'A' T_
R.F.A.NO.1 16.4! 2355 G3:JB:)
BETWEEN: . h V
sR;.s.A.PHAN:NDRANAm,
S/O sR1.s.v.AsHwATHA1AH "
AGED ABOUT :35 YEARS ._ ' A :
9.30? 240.1, BBA_SI'§'E Nv()..,1G6'F-, ' '
Hm ROAD, Gazim. 1ST STA:{}E:..4
2&9 PHASE, (>199. _Ev§;S.R}&Mi\IAH
COLLEGE 13Us_~:fs'r«0-33, g _ 'V V _ ._
BANGALORE ' ' ', APPELLANT
(By S21:B.,IJéiEE:3:3;fi:3R.¢§RL:;~;1.A1%, SRI.T.R.ARUNI LATE? <:,M,.Mr;m'A
__AG_a"D. A'BQ1.I'F.?"i. YEARS
i?E::§I£3:'N<:i~vAf1'°'~NQ. 14:2,
c<::«g:0NuT'AVi5:reUE: ROAD
MALm3'wzu~2AM
__BANG:"%.LC:?RE 3. RESPGNDENT
A 5]" L359' f:$1i.BHARA'?'KU£'viAR MEH'"i'E§, ADV, 3/ R)
THIS RFA ES HLED {HS 96 OF' CFC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT RN!) DEGREE DA'FED:28.5.2008 PASSED 3N
OS.NO. S530/07 Gfsf THE'. F¥LE OF' THE XLE AQDL. CITY
2
CHEIL AND SESSIONS JUBGE3, CCI-§.NO.2?, BANGALORE
CKTY, EEZCREEWG THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT, ARREARS
OF ¥€E3N'i' Afiil) MESNE PROF'i'i'S.
THIS REA. COMENG ON FOR ADMZSSKJN 'f'H{S DAY',
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Both the appeliant aI1d. res;3011de11ts __a”1’e”
along with their learned eeunsei. The 1 fit ~..
compromise petition under Order
reporting settlement whereuiider, t?tie.v;i§:}3el1é*;;ri{f agreed L.
to vacate the suit scheduiue”V«_ ;3remiees before
:28.2.2(}’1MCi of Rs.5,150/– per
monthvVv’;fiT<f)'–1n of vacating the premises.
The Vre_sp0ii(§e;*1i:.¢VEaiiziléiiifi has 110 ebjectien to grant tizne
}e(};"i:(§'"i;iie appeilant: to vacate and hand ever
'1ei;a.ea1;it».}§'0$session of the suit schedule premiees. Beth
%pa1'fies':–.V_a€i2:s}iE the exeeutien of compromise petition
and eofifcnts thereof. I am satisfied that the terms agreed
{OR 1fgetWee11 the parfies are lawfill. Therefore, the
V' efiompromise petifiozz is aeceeted.
M
3
12.. Accordingly, the appeai is disposed of in terms of
compromise petition granting time till 28.2.203.() to the
appellant to quit and deliver vacant possession offvtilfisuit
scheduie premises is the responzient — 1an(i10r;§’;”‘~ «’ A’
3. As the settlemexu between the pasftiéifi-~.. u
arrived pursuant to the i:1tervé3;1tionT«A.€%f
appellant is entitled for 1″efu1id.___0f f1i11.§:’C):1rt i¥:i;e ‘ 0:} ;
– ‘ a i .
% ppea meme
4. Acccardirxgiy, fee paid on the
appeajlv in vlight, of the judgmellt of
I3ivisi0f1Be:1ch Qf in the case of 1i.Sraeramaiah
‘Vs. the soz{£;:._:ru.;:ian’;3d£§k Limited, Bangalore reported 21
* ”
sdl
judge