Devendranath Bhargava vs Padma Devaraj on 6 January, 2010

 

IN THE HIGH COURT 0E KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE em DAY OF JANUARY 2010 
PRESENT  T

THE HON'BLE IVELJUSTICE  'A:  "'

AND

THE HON'I3LE MLJUSTICE s;=N.sAT¥ANARAYAivA:j'-A..__' 5,;

R.F.A.N0..7., _9g200;jg "
BETWEEN: 'V . V

1 DEVENDRANATH BHARGAVA"~ , A _
S/0 LATE o:\mARNATH}BH:A;=zGAE[-A.'T 
66 YEARS, R/A NO. 551/1."    *
Tsr ELoo:R.__9TH A.M..A1N.. '
INDIRANAGAR.  V     :
BANGA1;oR:;;.E.T560 035;   " 

2     

W/o I)-.N;;. BHA;RGAV'A. .

 YEARS'; A Em N0. _55 1/ 1-.

15'? FLOOR. 911:; 

INDIRANAGAR7' ,.  '

BANGALORE 560,035. .. APPELLANTS

[By AA,  0., ; MC' RA;\r0ANNA & SR1 VISHWANATH. ADV.}

  .pA13"MA DEVARAJ
A  W/0A; IIJEVARAJPURI. 42 YEARS
 R,{A No'. A A 21 III STREET
OFF In: MAIN ROAD
ANNANAGAR. MADRAS 60043

    {DELETED}

3 JAIRAJ {DELETED}  RESPONDENTSL

‘4 ‘(By Sri ” : KRISHNAPPA. GIRISH KODGI 8: RABIIESH RAO.

ADV.)

THIS RFA IS FILED {US 96 CPC AGAINSEITHE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 26.2.2005 A,…9A_SSEDflIN

OS.N0.5986/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE x1
JUDGE. BANGALORE CITY (CCH.N0.8) REJECTI1.:$1Gb THE_su_IT’ I

OF THE APPELLANTS HEREIN IN So”F.NR._IT’ TD

THE RELIEF OF SPECIFIC FERFORMALNCE DE{:R_EE.1NG_
THE SAME BY DIRECTING THE REsI=QNDEN’Tv”Ng;v..1_VVIIEREINj

To PAY A SUM OF RS.5.00§’0(§G:/- To”.TIIE’-AIIFELLANTS
HEREIN A/W INTEREST AT THETII TE oF”9%. RA. FROM
THE DATE OF SUIT TILL’DAf1’E.OF’REALISATION.

THIS R.F_.A.__ C0M:INGV1’j:0NV-GZRDERS THIS DAY.
SABIIAHIT J.,?_i)Ei1;fVERI¥3D TEE FoI.I;’c¥wI’NG:–

TTTT ‘V FMSXEEE ‘1’

LearI:eVd”‘ce-drxseisIippenring for both parties are
present. ” Beth.’4’r.’.part~ies have filed memo of

settietnent. ;Fh.ey___§1dmit that they have entered into

»S:¢t«t1e:Iient.,:fii!d have signed the memo of settlement.

25* Apfiellant is the plaintiff. The suit for

faerformance has been dismissed by the trial

In View of the settlement arrived at by the

‘v~peirties as per the memo of understanding dated

2/1/2010, learned counsel appearing for the

KI,/’v

appellant submits that appeal may be dismissed and

the amount deposited by the respondent.fslia1:1’*_l)e

disbursed to the appellant as per

understanding and the Court»..Eee:Wpaid’4’lliyflfkthe

appellant may be refunded

decision rendered by

–Vs.- THE SOUTH vI1’\fl)L41I7e””;B;.?1V_l’\TfiT”e.LTDA.l”BANGALORE
AND ANOTHER (ILR éogslmnill

3. is disposed of.

Court §é shall be refunded in

full to tlize

s Sd/–7
eeeee JUDGE

Sdifl
JUDGE

finvs