Smt E Elizabeth Prema Kumari vs Sri S T Srinivas on 18 March, 2011

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt E Elizabeth Prema Kumari vs Sri S T Srinivas on 18 March, 2011

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH OAY OF MARCH, 2O11

BEFGRE

THE HCDNBLE MR. JLESTICE ASHOK 3. HINCHIGERL"=.O:'f«.. "-_'

R.F.A.NO.933/2{)10(SP}  A 
C/W R.F.A.NOs.1?'58/'10, 934/10, ?14/19,;    '

715/1O, 1759/10. 2020/10 AE\3_i")A.3.8'91f'iO "   

RJ"-'.A.Ng.93§{ 10:
BETWEEN:

SMT. E ELIZABETH PREMA KUMARI
O/O SR1 F <3 EDWIN, ~

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

R/A NO.13, A TYPE HOUSE V f
ROBERTSON ROAD  V  ~ 

FRAZERTOWN: _  
BANGALORE ~ :50  O{}5_  A 4  APPELLANT
gm _SR_E   ADVOCATE)

    OOOOO 
:5  ':"~3fREf;fS"T,Sf-3§If\£}f%A2ii~;"3..'

3/0 {H I M M ALA Hf - . V 
AGED AOOU ?."A-.6?-AEARS

  R/A D;~.f§£O.23'f.R?-RILWAY ETATEQN RQAD

gHIVAPti,.Rﬁg MADDUR TALUK

" MAF3EUYA E3I}§STRIC'§"

« '**"§:*§%i';E":.«'::ré_%ii:§E*I"A.R*v'
_  =%<;E%\3'§:}RA UPAQHYAYAAREA §A!'é(3E-%& (9;E§§}
* ff VE%é;?s3::"§ﬁxLGRE SG§}T§~§ "'¥""ALi}%<



kg." 

'7

HAVING ITS REGISTERED GFFICE AT
N024, SLJSBARAMASHETTY RAGE
BASﬁ'»§V/KNACSLJDI,

Es'-WGALORE - 560 804  RESPONDEN---3fS

(BY SR1 K S LAKSHMIPATHI, AQVOCATE FOR  

SRI rs»: <3 SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)  '

THIS RFA IS $12.59 U/S XLI, R~1,WR/W S"--\;~?-6~.:'QF"'=.C?>SC? 
AGAINST THE EUDGMENT AND DEGREE EEATELEA: .;28,C«i2:.2U--*&'8 
PASSES IN O.S.NO.26764/2007 ON THE: FI1.~E..--S'O¥?.THE' X'){'vT_IIfI:1;_'
ADDL. CITY CEVIL AND SESSIONS }i_}_D'»C3E, S;:é«.NS.A:_0RE--,,j

DECREEING THE SUIT F€}R TER.~'1S..._ OF *-THE. CV(jF?':..E>}?._Q{YEI:'SE
PETITIGN.      

RFA NQ. 1758[10:

BETWEEN:

SMT.APARN;\    V    
W/O SRITSSATISH: _ _     " 

AGED ASouT;:1é5%"S*E,A§§:fS '°3*;f  ..

R/A No.47, Nmfxfbﬁ s<Ru::=>x_S  _ '   S S
mm TEMPLE STREET, MVA'N':D}§'ET'*~ 
TUMKURM 572 1G:L_ - ' " »-   APPELLANT
 " {BY SR:._Vffrf '£<R1§3;--£s\:A, ADVOCATE)

AQID-: 

 ;. Sr¢1T,'*-£Sv;.s4AQf:3éf;<:_La;i:;zxs{SA KHANUM
  W/0 'SYEG _F3A'r<L.URUSULLA

AGED ";aSQ..u:'-VS": YEARS

 ram N0. 51,*:.2"D MAIN, 2"" CRQSE
" 'mm§AHALL:, R T NAGAR POST

  S~.m.SA1;_QRE ~ 560 032

 .._"'?:HE i§ECRETARY
._ %<E£'~'~i§RA E}§3&§%~EY.é'%;¥'AR;l SAESSHA {RE§B)

V   §"§AF'é{:'2Aiﬁ§;E SGUTH TALSK



Lu

HAVING ITS RECEISTEREQ OFFICE AT
N824, SUBBARAMASHETTY ROAQ,
BASAVANAGUDI

BANGALORE k 560 094  REsperx:":jEé9~;i'[f:i§'-,

THIS RFA 15 men U/O-){L1, R-1 & R/W, SEC36'--- 0EV''c.r>e:*,f,'*''--J '
AGAINST THE EUDGMENT ANS DEGREE DATED.:,Q'3.,a33.;2Q08  
PASSED IN 05.26945/2007 ON THE FILE;£3F._THE xxvzziiz A'm~:,. 
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAfNGA_1.,{3F%iE',_ DLs:::REEV:LNc;3_'

THE SUIT IN TERMS QF THE CGMPROMISE'1«&PETI'?ION*.--   2 '

RFA N9. Q34[1Q:
BETWEEN:

SMT. YASHODA  

w/0 SRI R KRISHNA MURTW _ V

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,  %  '

R/A No.12/2, 10?"   I    

CUBBONPET, BANG/§{._QREj'V'e. 360 C02    ...APPELLANT

 H (Bx?':':?i_I '_'!P:'3<.VvV'R.I:'-%,'» I'»':'«w£:'§_iv;Es., _ADV\;"QCATE)
AND: ' A Z 

1. SR1 MAEQGE GC)'«f\_.f{}'.~'--x. 
_, ,5/0 BQ?§{EG{)WDA 'A   _
 A'{3ED"~ABC2UT 66 YEARS"

"R/A:E'xi--r1.68%¥;f.37T, 'MAHADEVASWAMY NILAYA
S»*3gT§'"§'!'>3CR'}.vR»..}f2.<i}A'9z§.CHANNAPATl\£A TALUK
BA:\:.G'A.L;QRE .'E§£S;?RICT

 V ms S}E'CRE:?AR;f

 KvEN{3RA"L}PI+'J\_BH'YAYARA SANGHA (REES)

H "  'BA.NGA<LQR"E SGUTH TALUK

 E+%£s"z§Ei?\i6"AET§ REGESTEREQ QWCE M

 ... §'¥20,2%4, Sugmaamagngwv mm

'T ._'b*A§Av,aNAsuD:

 jaamamaag ~ 5&9 $94  §RES?Q§%E$E?§T§

{$5 SR1 K 55 Ls%§<$%%§%§?ﬁs?%§§, ;$,§'%f$€!3{?E FQQ §~?i§;;



.. 'A "Eu , 

4
SR1 M G SATEESHA; ADVQCATE FGR R2)
THIS REA IS FILED UXC3 XL} RULE 1 R/W SECJ36 OF CPC,

AGAINST THE JUQGMENT AND DECREE DATED:5.11.f£i3Q7
PAS$ED IN {}.S.i\JO.25868,/200? ON THE FILE OF THE_.v>{X"~e_'II-I

ADDL. CETY CI\11L3UDGE, MAYQHALL, BANGALQRE, E>Es:i;;E,;Ef:%r:s;::;"~
THE SUIT IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE PETITIQN Arm_1:scpPE't;:_1j;§»:ss:":*'V..._T 
HEREIN PRAYS TO DECLARE THE SALE DEED DAT§p"-2.5;§;V2Q@9--.. _ 

1N E><,P£\1(f)"25089,!2008 AS NULL ANQ vein   " . >

RFA NQ..714[1Q:

EETWEEN:

SMT. SANDHYA 3 SHETTY

wzo SR1 JAYA S SHETTY ' 
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS   _ -%
R/A No.14}, 45*" CROSS, :57 MAEN1 V V
2"" STAGE, ARAKERE Mme LA.¥'G'UT'

BANGALORE - 560   V  '...APPELLAf\£T

 " '('B*(. §L:;:R1 ;i"tf:A:§<RI'&3.ij réA, A'wé§cATE)

1. SMT. RHUE ALFZAKHA_E\iLf_M'~..\-~L'

wzo sf.-'ED_AsDu.;,_ WAJID,

 " v.é\GEE_I' 'fsaqmj :22 YEARS. »

'  Rzn  5 §F""<::R0ss

*:.«§.is~s:..'B-Va. RQA£>;..K'iz.wAL BYRASANDRA EXTENTIQN

R;-T, v«E\3Ai5A¥1<«.POS"E7,v"BANGALQRE - 559 032

THE §«ECR_ET,£jx§?;Y,
 4 'KENDRA i)%3ffi\DHYAYA¥{A SA:asGHA(REGD}
'»".A"--..B;i'1{§J{3ALCiR['"E SGUTH TALUK.
- 4 »H:\v:N«<:; ITS REGISTERED OFFECE AT
" _E's§c::,;i~«:'!,aE%UBBARAMASHETTY RGAD

 ___"~E§A£§A\£Afa£AGUDE, BANGALQRE - 55% am  RES?O§x£BE¥'é'¥"S

(BY SR? 5*? Q S§a_"§"EE'S§%A FQR R2}



 ;m

.'3

THIS REA IS FILES U30 XLI RUi..E I. RXW SECL96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUQGMENT AND DEGREE DATED: 3.3.2008
PASSED EN C3.S*NO.26946f2G07 ON THE FILE OF THE X){__\/III
ADDL, CETY CIVIL LEUDCSE, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE, DECREEE1?s£G

THE SUIT iN TERMS OF COMPROMISE PETITIQN AND APPELLEANTVV
HEREIN PRAYS TO DECLARE THE SALE DEED BATES 

IN EX.P.f\EO.2514S/2098 AS NULL AND VOID.

RFA :\:g.?1.5g1g:  
BETWEEN:

SW". MYASHEELI ELIZEBETH

W/O SR1. E. MESHAK }ONA§"'HAN,

AGED ABQUT 58 YEARS

R/A No.4, 3" CROSS(LEF"I")   .

MOTHER MARY'S SCHOGL   _    AA 
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALQRE -~' 56{) Q.1_6.j;.,  APPELLANT

(BY g.;23*:..f:f'%;-K§»2I;$:~as}Lcs;;.~: AQ\7:7jCA#f_§i) V

14 SR1 DOi_EwEGC1W£,>A  
5/0 BASAVEGOXNDVA,  A' V 
AGED ABOUT63 YEAEIS '
V R/A N,o:;6'84:23, [3~.;_2, 12?" mass
 'v.1AsH2.2y'pxN,Afm%A EXT "va:----~$(:>:\:
 Kuv§Mr=ur¢.A€;A«aV, CHANNAPATNA.

"mg ':,-f.E%é5a:§:'fé_R2%'V;'-"'
_ KENDRA UPgiXﬁ.i€AYAYARA SANGHA{REC3{3)
BANGALGRE SGUTH TALUK

3" ."'--:»};';'w:{Tr\\;<3 TF5.' REGISTERED OFFICE AT

  r~4j:L24,;*»«suaARAMA SHETTY ROAD;
M s;x%5;2w;r;;.x§us:; 8AP\i<3:ﬂxLQRE ~ gas Q84  RESPGf'é§EE'*éT§

   {$9 SRE M G §AT§E§;~m; ASVOCAYE FQR R2}

"THEE Rm :3 mag 23% XL: ;§,~§., RXW 9% §? €P¥€;}.
$gV3§§N§"E" ma 3E.,i$$§'v'£E§'»§"§" .::,:a;§ sgmgg mrgw: 2832,2938



'?%"

6

PASSED EN O.S.NG.26?67/200? GN THE FILE OF THE XXHVIII
ABEL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, DECRE£f:1'E%3G
THE SUIT FOR TERMS OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION. " 

RFA N0.17§9[1Q:

BETWEEN: 
SMT. B PARIMALAMMA

0/0 8 S BILIGIR RANGA RAG

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

R/A No. 1, 15"" CROSS

swmmms PQOL EXTENION     
MALLESHWARM, BANGALORE.-9.560 4303*;  MAPPELLANT

(BY SR1? KRISHVNTAV,  

AND:

2* SR1 [)OE)DAP¥?"A C;-éjwoa J ' "
sxo NINGEQO'\;1_{D'A'«1.,__ _  
AGED ABOUT 64,;YEA§«:;s M  %
R/A D K i<.QP.r>A.L,   " %
SIDDAPURMJST --V ._ ._

K R F\3AGAR"I'*ALUK  "

I-~>

_ THE S.E_€i:'RETARY  u V V
 K--EENlIi>R.A' L§_PADIfiYAYARA"SANGHA (REED)
'~fBANGA_1._O_RE":. 3Qt;...lTH TALLJK

 HA}./_IVN--G«IT'£E '_§?:.EGISTEREE OFFICE AT
  :°~ae.2z:,_,_ SuBBA§:;..mASHETTY RQAD
 BASA\f';'3.{\£A$U5Df§
 BANGAL€3RE »» 5663 004  RESPCENDENTS

'%';':%::S"re:§5,a. :5 FILES mama GREEK xii RULE 1 WW SEC.§6

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT Am DEGREE
_  . _§QA"E-7§.§i'}':';§;'6ﬁ8,2Qﬁ8 WSSES {F23 6.325866,/28$? QM TH§ FELE QF
'T%Lf;"%«é;E'4«.'V><><xz::: mgié é:::z"v €E'f£L M63 §§SSE$NS EEJQSE,



$32»

BANGALQRE, BECREEING THE SUIT FGR TERMS {BF THE
COEVHQROMISE PETIYION. 9 

RFA N0. 2Q2Q£1Q:

BETWEEN:

SW". KANCHAN <3 TALREJA 
W'/O SR1 GOPAL VASHUMAL TALREJA

AGES ABOUT 50 YEARS .

(3/0 C T SIDDAREDDY ' _ 
R,/A No. 10133, 1??" C MAIN: ST" BLoCK_"» __  
KORAMANAGA, BANGALORE 3560 e9_5___  % ;';..£§Pif>_ff:LLAi\J'3"
(av SR1 "E" KRIS-!~§'m.A;~.gxt§v<jt:2i§T:t£'} _

AND: .  

:. SR1: S KODANDA..RA1i}1A£AvH«_ _ 
S/O SEENAPPA  " '  
MAJOR V 1111   
R/A MUTHYALPEI.' _  _
MULBAGAL *:"0v;:'rM~§x11:s% PC}.S'i7---._ - -
KOLAR DISTF=11C"§"-- V  "  

s->

THE SEQRETAM'  ._ 
 KENDRA UPASHYAYARA SANGHA (REGD)
' ' BAN€;3A'LCf-RE SQUTH '"E"A'i;UK

"E-iA\fI_NG ITS R;Eg3£sTEREa OFFICE AT
ram,24,«S':;33§=;.AR;;§'r~4ASHETrY RQAD
 3AsA_vAN,2xGiu:i.{3*£
_ §ANG'AL{3?RE*~" 568 004  RESPQNDENTS

F. f;""H:$,.RFA;"is FILED UNDER ORDER XLL RULE 1 WW SEC.

 396w.   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ANE) DEGREE {DATED

».".V_2?._§_,2'C¥.G{'}'PASSEB EN ®SsNGa£6?6?;0? SN THE FILE @F THE XI

  '::5eS.Q§_¢ QZETY CEVZL EUBQE, BAi\fSﬁ:.E_C}RE, SECREEINCE "§"HE SUE?
' V  FGRV' §"ERE"a'E§ G?' 'EHE C§MPR%?%'EES3E §ET1T§O¥'=L



RFA N9. 1§91,{1Q:

BETWEEN:

SMT. [3 R, VATASALA

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

W/O 9 R NAC5AFZA}A RAG

R,/A f\iO.493/68, 111 MAIN, BANASHANKARI
E STAGE, E BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 050
(BY SR: R BHADRINATH, A'DVO_CA'jFE}_   * V
AND:   "  '

1. SM SEENAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/C! LATE NARAYANA REEDDY V
R/A N€).40, WH1TEFIELEl'__P&'D&_ST_':
BANGALORE * 560 066 4' M '

id

THE sEc:RETARY_*~ _ .   1  1
KENDRA UPAD%fYA'f{P"RA"SAN€'3HA'~{AREi3w{?.)..§
BANGALORE:.S{'}i     V .

r-zAvm«:;i>_:T$ 'REV'"I"37{EREi}_:C%v§F§CE AT
N024, suaa.ARAm ':Stfi'i:E7T__"E"{4f:E{3AD
BASAVANAGLQDZ, B.axNr3A:,c;~.RE --~ 560 004

 RESPONDENTS

(£53/5~S§}z.%: i~<.__NAGESW-=%--WARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SR: M "GVSATEESHA, ADVOCATE ma $22) &'m:'s.1§z#A..,%}V1:':'.T'V-£512.53 U/O-->{LI, R»: R/W 396 3? am, 1 -...£'a@AIE\§S'{'V "THE ':..:;:t:3'G:~¢E:\;T AND DECREE DA"E"EQ:18§:1,2G€}4 §3A:'~ZSED EN 0.S;2.E:4/2901 Gm THE FILE 0? THE Z><§»~AB§i_. cm' _ . j::_:vIL, 3U9GE; QANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FGR gvgcmc ' PE¥E;EC:R§'%'iIANCE:} REGSLAR FIR$T ff§?PE/EXLS ﬁﬁff C{:IE'~%IE\£{3 SN FQR " '1'i§.j;z};::'ER::s THES ma', THE $323935 §E'LI\fERE§ mg FQLLQWENG:

_ ,. A.F%r>:?§.LL;:;r¢*r' ._ V ,1Q9§¥9'¥E!"sfT In aii these a;:s§ea§s chaﬁenge is: raised ta the <:or27;:E}:s««a:%§'%~s_e decrees seam by the Cami at' the XXVITEE Additisﬁaé . Ifudge, Mayo Bait. Bangahsre in O.S.i%£e_s.".Z_§§4SZ§?;: 2€V7'65<§~;f V 2S868;'0';?, 25946/6?, 251%?/9?, 25856:;**i;G?1'_ a*:*::§ti Af§y t'fife' :¢[;;;%1::"L't::

the XI Additmnai City Ci}! i_§"'-~....3u§igé:, %ama;9{e inf' €).S.Nas.24~84,f2{30G and 134g20m.%i.T%L%%"* 2, The respondent""--§?§'é;;.,.1"-._fi?§.g§;;"""tE;@;"suit fer specific performance against _thgf res;3'Ghd$é:nt"!%&}3_._Ii. . basis of the jnint camprcmisﬁ-V 'i3'fi'~ﬁS:€rjte.g§ respondent M6551 and 2, the <:iVe <_::ig»:_es;~§'t*é:~1;}§§ss§3§i.,: ' " 331 Eréfi", _K_rTi§ii:~zVa,V_Vth%e'Eg'a:'i;f2ed munsei for the appeiiants in R.:=.A.Nos«933;'2<3:;.0,« _"1'}§*57'8;..1:{3»,.'.--- 934/10, 714,210, 715,110, l?5§,/10 and 2Ci§3?,{);'~3 G ~suL:Et1ét§ that the séteﬁ in question are a m:at¥:ed tﬁa r+aspV'§o':*:.r3& e __{§_§;'éFd9.2 ta tine aizapeﬁants in 198'?. The re'::.*=pen:a"«@:jtt E%£{:«'2:--.4§fé;?:s_ executeé the iease-{um---sa§e agreement: in favafzﬁ¢'§_:?ié"z§V§_;:3.eEi§;§i*é%$ in 1%? étsetf. He submits that emu the safe deeés 'a-'fies. géieseenteﬁ ii} the juri-sdictianai S1.ah~Regi$trar, ﬁr:

: %'$s:;e gzfvtéxa stamgs xsai-am payaﬁe an the instmment, '$3 '§*sfe§;V§'<s9i:;":.%%:§a§'§ was keg: gaming. Siiﬁﬁfﬁﬁﬁiiég iaéi thgsg rnateréai :3? iﬁég matteég, {ha §'"'€$.§Q§'°'§§&ﬁi Ema: trieé in geié {ﬁg a same sites te the third eartiee, hameiy; the férgt respondents in ah the appeals for making the urzfawfui gain.

4. The teamed Counsel submits that same fiCZf.i?i'§AU--t;s' entered hate the Cempremise with the re3..p}onti:e'x*;At 'F\3__o;1:'1'.;

to the afiegeci compromise de<:reess,_ the"----se'E*e deef3's.'e'3re also V executed in favour of the resDondent"'t'a%t§Lh1. He"::=u\bth:V§ts that the appeliants are the true, iawfuf' and _3be_eiet.e:'6'w.ners ti? the sites in question. It is only by practicérﬁ frtzéitixtritv 't'h~e__'passing ef the Cempromise decree i:;:vt':%§:§:I1'itate;:i. g

5. " ebjections over the maintainabiEi€'}',,_ inf evermied because, an the deletion of Ruiettltﬁth} Ruie 1A (2) is added to the saidVOrder._:¥'het.saée§ Vtrearcfs as foliows:

"ts; challenge non-appealable orders in 'apjbeei eg'e;fhe=t'Vdecrees, --~ (1') XXXXXXXXXXX {2,§,_Ih en' aegéeai against as tiecree eessed In 5 suit after rfecerdirzg £1? Compmmise er refusing to record 3 "";;:Q:r2;;2;<s;§Ami.§'e, ii ghef! be men to the appeiiant ta contest _t}:eV:?'e=;f:tee am the greens' that the com;:.w*em{ee sheazie', or ..,[V":na;;;{;: mi; fteve been reeercfeeﬁ "

eee:

éiﬁ E1

6. He has reiied en the Apex Cozérfs judgment in the ease of BANWARI LAL V. CHAN9O DEVI (SMT.) (THROUGH ms.) AND ANOTHER reported in (1993) 1 scc aﬁvartce his contention that if the cempmmise lawfuiiy arrived, Section 96(3) weuid mt-_ec»¢me%e~;n'e~t23[%e4»%;ay--.Vo:*ee%"

fiting the appeai. He read out para 9 of fzhe sgaei<i:'jz:'ed._g'nﬁe's§t;'V:'?hé:::_; same is extracted hereénbelow:

"9, Section 96(3) of the Code s.5»a_fs_§:»"s'-:":f_7e-.=-z:"_»n<:J eppee} shell /ie from a decree passed 'me Ceufi" v£.{th i:'ﬁ1e Ccnsvehfvvof the parties. Rule 1--A(2) bee ea-3/;'ng that against a decree .pessed."'m- Sc*£f"»e,_a?'§*er héterding a compromise it s_ha'ff;;jT!?:e ogjen :::e":tb"e" ep--,E7'el!a.r.>f to contest the decree ;;zre:é§.},;*:'c"i 'fh.e"z'7 the uc'5o'm;?)rom/'se shouid not have been reCorde e?:"-..QiI}'3e'nu§ec£"/'on 96(3) bars an aﬁﬂeal against decfeeéé pessee.'.A'-.4xf.f;'1._':we consent of parties, it imp/ies_ _that s~u{7h decree Vi:se"Vva!r'd and binding on the partiéségunless set"'esfQ'__e«'!2y the procedure presc:ribec2' er V ':é'v'a{/Vebie t_}2ee_partr'es, One such remedy avmfabie was ..é;;;;{e;§; under Order 43 Rule Hm), If the V ore'e.r"--recerc§fi';%;gﬁe compromise W35 set aside, there was _ no ,ré'e.ces.;;}'fy~.§§r eccesien is ff/e an eppeef against me krfecree. " Sffyvifariy 5 Suit ugea' 50 be fifee' for getting aeicfe '..j'§5:;A§f:f%'L:iecree on the ground that {he decree is based on an ;'§'r.zé2;:;§"e:':2e' iffegef cempremise rsef S/'m:¥r'rzg an the gjieiniffff gf_§;w'7e second em": Bast after me ememjmenée whicﬁ ﬁeve '4 beer? !r2§r::2:2'g,;5:ee',. rrezfﬁer an eegﬁeez' egaingi She Gfcﬁer U receriiiag me cemgremiee rims" remeey if}; 2-eegx ef' ﬂing 3 aa suif is eveiiaiyie in Cases eevereci by Rafe 3% of Orrjer 23. __ As each a right has been given under Rule I-M2,} of Order 43 to a party, who cheifenges {he recercjing compremise, to question the vaiidify éhereef ..""ir:'s'f?i\/€31 preferring an apeeei against the decree. Sf3Ci'fO{1~v9¢'"5{f:3f:;5..(§i':~.:: < the Code seeif not be 5 bar to such en e;5;3ea';'._becaV§_}seV Seciion 96(3) is e,0,0iicabfe to cases wi:«ere:._"'f!?e fecifgiirieif "

com;3romi'se er agreement is noi.:"f2-e:}'i5pufe.v_ "

7. Nextfy, Sri T. Krishna; {Rom the Apex Courtfs judgment in the v. COCHIN {)EVASW§3--!V}_ reported in AIR 2997 SC 31_5i:>.Li. 1i,in§§£iéii below the Head Note 'A', whéchv__é$Vvex~E{e<",:'§e:§§ V "ordé; 23, --,r2;gi§e"..3,A_»?prcg __ti:.a: no suit Sheff fie to set aside a c3'é':<ji'e'e on fhar the Compromise on whici': the eieeifee {S-__béi«seti...~'»éxvas not iewfui. "me bar c:on£"a»i'i_ie£:' i2uie"3.!%V:Livifi net some in the way of the High . .tL'o;1ri*'- e;<e"mi'n'i.r:g theVv'i}ei!i'dity of a Cempremise decree, "-meg' af fraud/collusion are made against 5 S'i'efcvie.f*QryvVe:;?fi2ori%;k'V..which entered mm such cemprzemiseg If ie {we iivefvifiecrees of Civii Ceurts wimicfv have attained _ _ if_ine1ity ehez;;'ie' not be interferee' iightiy. Buf when en en ﬂe.*R;rciie:'..i;iei'z}e passed by Mfg}? Cour? directing "fempie Eearzzi V _§e.Vfe»i<e"eesees3ion ef Temgie preperfy from reseenefeef, geese enferee' irite cemeremfee w:':'i'z respondent 52:3 "--«.:§i:}e ee éeeir righze Ar: ,ereeerzfy' ii': egzesfiee in f{€LS of " reeeeeeieeée giving ;::e$$e:ssier2' of eeeéitrer preeerfy weigh 'T er §.»-55, Ea, E3 Wes efee e Temefe ereperty and get a comgramfse decree pegged, cheilenge {ﬁe each compromise decree by an eggrievee' devotee, wee wee moi' e eerty be the eaxitg"-T cannot be rejected, weere fraud/creiiueien on the pew efffcers es' 3 ﬁtetutery Board is made Gui. F£J1"'i"f?€3!'_", r.- the Mgiz Court by order had directed the Boa;fe' "z%e. take % possessierz er' em': fend immediateiy fmm»reepc%'nde;§f:?V:.§n 3 Complaint by another demise, it was £;'2':;3:3o,:§"er' fa?" tfie"-..__ 'A Board to enter into a Settiement with fes;§endenTts=-Q, Qiikifzg up the rz'g:;zi2zf, riﬂe and interest in'-.s;ii:?f%bpro;ie.<fV" fhe S permission cf the Court which ,::aeeVe-a'_e:.z.c;f? orchﬁe-::_ _ i

8. He relies on the Dsﬁéezon"_:Be;:<:'E~:'wéjgment ef this Court in the case 03' BAHU BALI RA.M:A§?P}Ai:?A¥5NA:§§-JKNB ANOTHER v. BABU e;.'1"i-QDNAD AND omens reported iﬁ to buttress his submission that when the e--;}peEie§*i:s:Vere.Fne't- sheék parties to the suit and when the ..?&3&asV"VnE:$"ii""bVeen properiy represented, appeai is the"'c..ye!'iyf_e.éerfjjeﬁreveﬁebte to the aggrievee appeiiantsg He ates "'~"t'ead eut..44'EheV.;;e:{§:ée$e eeiew the Head Nete at' the Apex Courfe .41i.j'.j':eeg':'g.son in 's_h_e~ case 9% KISHUN ALIAS RAM KISHUN {DEAD} 4'~-.V.'T':--:Ti='1¢%;:;_Ge§§g me, an BEHARI megm) BY LRS. regeeee in . 6 SQC 38%: Tee eeie eertéee ie extreetee hereéebeiew:

E4 "ﬁtter the emissfen ef Rule .z{m) ef Greer 43 CFC? vs/,e.f. 2~2u:S?7'?', no epeee! is erevided e_:;ei'nst an order rejecting1 er acceeting 3 cempromiee after an enqeiry under tne proviso te Qtctfet 23 Rafe 3, either by Section 104 or by Order 43 Ruie 1 CPC, Oniy wtien the acceptance of the cemgaromice receives the z'n'2eri'metur the court end it becomes a decree, or the court ,eroceed$A' ' ta pass a decree on merits rejecting the cempremi-.,:'e"sett.V:"

up, it becomes eppeaiable, uniess of cocirfse, tbe_--'é;j;3e§§i: V' barred by Section 96(3) CPC. When t.nere»_:2;'1,!'a;=,* on the question whether there was .3 ce;?7ei'*en7ise»bi¢'not: it a decree accepting the compromis_e'---en reeeitmion {3C}I7fFOV€f"Sy, eeuid not be safe' to £9ei'e_ciectee the consent of the parties./._ Thietefevzfe, 'the bet ane'er Sectien 96(3) CPC COU/0' net 'nave.}g;j§;:§i?icé'E'i§jn;'i ﬁn appeai and a secengf v'v.r't!7*-. its""i.imitati'ons wouid be aveifats!e'--._to _the3:35:35'Vfeefing...__agerieved by the decree based on euchie c:ti'5p:Lit:é,§c:t c::.rz"i}:3;'%/gitnfse or on a rejection of the compromise sete;-":7, ' Sti.j."i?.c:_E:ha.c§tinath',""'$:t¥e iearned ccmnsei for the appeiiaﬁt in R,VFA.2§xu"t§e§1t8::9«;Vi:6 ..fs:1§f;>mitS that the respondent: E\ie,2 came not :iV t;.a'r-.:'e exeeetee vifIf1'e:7--.:~;a§;Ee deed in favour at the reseoneent No.1,

-- -.e]:;:..t.tjte..,Hen'bEeVS'upteme Court of India E133 granted a etatus-qua 'e'_t&er"€%:»Cg§vEA_' Appeaé Ne.3C)38/O7 te which the teepondent No.2 ' §?t'ee_"V'e"§se't?e $3???' the said eepeei ereceeeinge were eeedétag tot :3 a iorig oeriod of 38 years. They were conciuded oniy on 8.2.2010; so submits Sn Bhadrinath.

10. Per contra, Sri §<.G.i_a1<shmi,oatiii, the ieariied appearing for the respondent No.1 in 934/10, oeraies the aliegations of fraud.__....H.e' respondent No.1 is a boriafide purchaser of tiie He takes exception to the deiay on"Ehi;--:-...partA'ofV the in approaching this Court. Asﬁiie s§:I_éViA"d.eerjs a.re'.r3g<er;iLited in favour of the first responde:ié"*1«'8o~.y?€f§r1§'§S} aiiegations of impersonation, fraud, _etc_:_. aré"'s"orrjnr--:atiii.iig, iArh.ifcT»39§ can for icriai. Based on it cannot be heici that the aiiegationé-.o'f«'.fraizoiiiﬁngi'v«iV.®;ooroonation stand proved, He reiies on tn;-3._Hori"b~!3."SoVp--.rérn»'é"~i.ioiirt's judgment in the case of PUSHPA BY LR v. RAJINDER SINGH Am) o1'|~iEjgs: or5e'p:§;~~{é(§.4"i'ri:V:3i.IR 2005 sc 2628 and submits that the 17::'oppeiIaréi:3_f"'%rsan1e:i§%.V_ ié to approach the Court: which has passed

-4%_Ttjif2,r<3.4_{:=:i,risent dooreer He has also reiied on this Coi.iri:"s oecision iii 4j'f'T.V'?V""i€. SURESH RAMACHANDRAPPA ;<I1.A3ANmz AND .:§'T}T_'SfER.i$ 'Sf: i<u:~i,.vm¥A reporieﬁ in 2806(5) Rm 321 to 16 corstehé that a peroohf who is not 3:1 sorry to the suit, canoe'; fiie an appeat againot the compromise decree.

31. Sri A,C3.Sridhar and Sri K. Nageshy§_3':-.:~f{;3pe;~.xnthe--v..:-- iearoed Qounsei for the respondent No.1 :;'hmV¥?;»fF4;,*§.':*d_o.-:71§';;:E=Q aféd R.F.A.E\Eo.1891/1G respectiveiy adopt theV..e:..s.bmi$$'i::n'$'v -of?' Lakshmipathi.

12. Sri M.G. Sateeshe,"'the.iee:f%f:'e'o""'C§o:;£:'fi::e'£ has ﬂied the vakalath for the respohedehnt 10, 934/10, 1714/10, 1715/10 is not present before the fraud and Coélusion between the ZiiespohA£:}e%r*::~».i§os{iv..p_e32:3 2; Further, no statement of objections or affidevoitv iéfiéeri o'r:'i"'-hehalf of the respondent No.2. .---__13. "tVhe____l_eamed advocates, the question that fali¢$'--fo:;:h=,<Vcohside§'éti_on is:

*A".vI£he§heE"L:fhVeVgoersons, who are :'?C?f ;:3art:'es to the V _ Comfkromoioe-.«o'ecree, are entitled to mamrafn these ~ jg 2 _ _V '-r3ppeafs'?.V 3 answer we question; ﬁe E3 hecesgory to refer to the . 'oroggéozize Cooiaéoeo in ﬁecizior; % aoo Grder XXEEE Roie 3% one C?C£ Toe'; are extyeeied heeeénbeiow:

gegtigtr 9§ Appeal from original decree.- (1) Save where o£"f?erw;'se exprasafy p:'"ow'a'ad in the may 03' this Cede ar by any ether {aw for #23 {Ema being in farce, an apﬂaai sﬂaif fie frame every aaarae passea' by any Court ex'ar<:;'sing 0r"ig.r'naf_~-__ }'ur:'5dic£";'c2n to the Court authorized to hear aapaals the decisions of gush Caurt (2) An appeaf may fie from an origins! decree ._ ,£}Bf'Z'i°3.

(3) No apaeal snail fie froma _a'ecréeA_,£éaasad?V.?3'jx.

Court wifh the consent of Darfies. K V' ' "

{4} Na aapeai shah' fieg' ~a_xcepi""én cﬁesfstion' b'f'fa'i}v, from a decree in any suif*;>f--.fh--;f_ §%2aj.fu}'e;':ca§;*;2izab1@ by Courts of'Sfi*2a.UA Caué5é§3;* w??:ah- the' arnoijnt or value of the subject-Jr:afta;' <3f'V:.§'::'c'3 G:jgma'f'=5:35' does not axceed ten thousand rrgéea, ' V ' W .' 3 g;,g5ggxx:fz._,' = 3§§f' Ear tr; $ui{'L¥é""I\i:> suit shall fie to set aside a ',;;"ie;:fre:eV o.r;_v T:f7re~..g?:>_:;nd that the Compromise an which the ::ﬂ3:::*a%l:_;a E5" '::=a';:ad .i%L:a*§ not Ia Wfii/'_ 3.3. Na .a'g'§'eement or compromise to be entered ' Ina rabraaentative suit without leave of COUI'f.*° {1} _ X }'*Jr3: vagmamant or campmmisa in a representative suit _'«a'~__g?;<a$f' 'tie anéaraaﬁ into: wimaaz {ﬁe iaasm of éba Cow":

.V _a;<,:§,:ra5s§y raaaraaa in ma praaaadingsg and am; sash agraamaaé :3?" CQ:'?'2;C?f'$;"}'?iS8 aniaraa ;'ai"a wiiaaai ma leave :2? {Eye 53551;": as racaraad gﬁaii 525 ma.

z§%w'> E8 (.2) Before granoog such feave, the Court sfzaff give nooce in Such manner as it may awn!-:' fit to such persons as may appear to it to be interested in the suit.

5><'£3fan£¥i'r'of3'- In this rufo, "representative 3uia"'means,....+. o- "

{5} a suit under Sect/'on 91' or Section 92, {5} a suit under rwe 8 of Grder I, {C} a suit in which the manager of aar':,_;:fz::3ff£x/'o'eo'v;%fiodu~. "

famiiy sues or is sued as"rfé;::z{"os@ritmg .thé..vot'§7:er.. members ofthe famffy. V' ' " V (cf) Any other suit in the de--oroe~~..§5'a§$~ed may, by virtue of the provisions of tf:i$"C':jo'e~¢.o%vof airy other few for the tisirfé é2er'ng' r'}§fo*r;ce, af2yg,r:"érson who is not nam_ei/_:f aa§3;é¢3f.:'£';z"io soft». V "

4, ><><xx;o§Xx,x;<>oo§ , .. _» ' V o ' '

15. Order 3~£>_4<3Ai%IIV RVfu.ia§'.3AV.:§i.ontains the prohibition that no suipcao be5;fEETe*cf toV.'<:E*1V33.E._§3__'.'.<;'€ the compromise decree. It is anséatedvj%b~;r1VArr§_enoda:§5e:.n_t Act 104 of 19%. It prohibits a Suit to 'szget aséoé, :t"f:--e'c§vo<;V:?%::$: {zothe ground that the ctomprormso was not V"'é'.3_§.«\:fL:i;. Affésj.t'§ae"éommencernent of the said amendment with ;3ffe'coE.Vof,roo":Ry2Vf'19Z?7, the only forum Eeft to the aggrieved party' c.§%%:--a£i:,j:o;'g'E§r*:g the compromise oecreo $3 the Court whim hag '_-.oa3$o§"'$a.2£§§ oocreo on the basaés of the iompromige. No éosﬁeoeoéooi: gait gha£%oogé:':§ toe aomoromigo on too groom? of Z9 freed er etherwise is competeri: in View ef this specific her provided in Ruie 3A of Order ><><m of Ce; Ruie 3A hasfeeen ineerteci eeiy to ensure the finaiity of the litigation. fiiing of the suit for the cancellation of a compremi.9:@:"~dVvee.fee oh' the groame ef the comprcmise not being :i:ewf;iij§ ; "ii i

16. Rafe 3e, which is aiso"isiiﬁserted'e'b_yA&:iM :iQe,r2.9i76, = "

prescribes two pre--requiremen is in Airee§L'e_ct-~..e.f ai temenremise to be entered in a representatixiiei_;uii,_ffififeiiieQ,v.:',é§i':e Court has to issue the notice of persons who may appear to tge i<i§i;i't:rgecondiy, eniy on ceneieerihg iipe Court would decide as to whetheitolr "to the parties to enter into the <:0mprQ_njise'ii""~.!3i" C<VZ'v)Vi":~.3[;2A)A!"'--f_21:ri"i'~§'§E2 ﬂied in a representative suit wiiiheut 1:3"-.--e-se requirements of the Ruie 3B is not vaiide_'_ei:i:i'_ 'hinciirig on the persons; not parties to it; ' 5..eepare*:e._'§sisii:_feV§'I._ebprepriete reiiefe ie ihe remeey. in this it i~s;""jaise prefitabie tr.) refer to the Division Bench this Court ih the case of SIDDALINGESHWAR V" V7f;';.i§7i§ ewe-tees vi vmueexeouoe Arm erases, reeertee ii":

ﬁgié 29 AIR 2003 KARNATAKA 407. The refevemi: eertéen ef the said judgment is extraeted hereinbelew:

"J4, .......... 4. A person who is not a party to the sz.:i:%,,,:*-_4""n.. C§ﬂ:'?Oi'."' ebvfeesiy fiie en eppiieetien in the suit, en~~.en..'__'_n"'.j' eepeei, to chef/enge a CO!??;'3!'Oi?'?!S<'3 as being not Set in a representative sun; if the Counjissues _.i'--1'e'ti'e%S" V' persens inferested in the sun' (who are :'?C7bt'.f:ﬁ<I~.';*':;'f}!'.'§S':'fA'A{Z3 suit) and hears them before deciding hahether' ..iee.ve '' sheuie' be granfed to {he pertiesEfe"--{he sen': in £he'.S$n:_'v€e.

enter into 3 compromise/agreemenhf,'azfhen they-szveeiéi aisgo in effect become parties to' the s¢:;'f"enn§"i'i«rii£i_{3e enfivtieeﬁe eveii the remedies that are"ex}e.fien!é';--én to the suit against 3 com,eremi'se er i*heV_eensen_Vt i;fe<;5ree;'~:wi2::&:h is not /ewfui. If no no:i::'cee._;'$.issL¥'Aed €fe'V.%he.ee'erjsQn.sfnéerested in a re,:3re5entai_"hre"»serifend cf2'3._ e....Ce.rrsef:;vuen.ce the consent decree {Se vein'. [such persons (who are no? parties) will vnef_Vbe':'ije.nfi'eieE1to file an eppiitefion in the suit' or file eVni«.eep.eei nnisferrrjfcnier 43 Rule IA, Therefore, V £*i7eirVr;i§:,rf2£'e..{"e brin..;:_;ﬂe' separate suit seeking appropriate remeine uneffeefed. We therefore hold that if V.'-._iZ?:uie"3,BA i'3_V'n'e';*eEi;npfied with, while passing a decree on e eurn',erenéise'_~v;fn e;";*epreeentetive suit, any persen who is effeefed ~e{}§i;'?'Teen7premise decree, but net 5 party to it inrzey fiiie Re; eeeerefe suit eeeiking eepreeriete relief in 'F:éQ£f{j tevvisneh eternnrernise decree, by way of deeieretien 'e:nerwi'ee, He may eise file as easft fer eepreeriete relief hkgnering ﬁne eemeremiee eeeree ene' each e eznf we'! net " ea' eerree eféner ey {the ;E3;";'i'3z:"fg':;'§@ er ree ;'e::?'s::e§?e er " Vesieeeeik "' %, Ex.) 1?. Since the censeht decree merely embQd_4Eves"-«ﬁhe cemprorhise er a centres: between the parties and it Creature of an agreement, the right of ap_p,e,al_ fron1"tn%ss'_ri.e'C~ree, isle' "' not proviéed fer. The enly reasonable interpretetilenl the:

put on Section 96(3) of CPC is th':%§V"--eVgain's't cQnsei=:ii_jv«r;i.ecr3eeV, ordinarily no aepeal is rnainteinab!e_._i_l:u:Hewever;' iarevisions contained in Rule 3A have stranger to the comiiremise decree. iris open'? a suit to sei; aside the cornprorn.iee can be set aside in the suit andrrot "the_;,eppee!VACr

18. In to refer to the Allahabad High CeL:rt:'s dee'ie.§g5r2., .ti;re;_V of SMT. SURAJ KUMARI v.

0;.erR;cfr'5--:t3§G§, r§m:z.A_PUR ANEJ omens, reported in AIR 1991_ AfLL_7s.__ ':r:';s;'irae_:d therein that Order xxm Rule 3A of cec:

:--"a,_hVas he "ep'pi.éCatéehj--fer='"a stranger to the eemrarernise decree. The V'7r_ele':.rent rie.ra"T§iVrah'g;ins of the saie eecisioh are extracted .: l~'r.ere'i.ii.!3?eit3xrsg:

The pe§:;'ric:mer's secoee' s:;bz2ez'se;'er: regereihg the hi .e,egf!eeefi§rjy er' £3.23, ii'.3<£: 32' Erie {Jamie ex' Cm": Preeeevre is m:'seen<:e§vea5 {the enevisfen rs eeefinee' éﬁriigr re rhe émr ga 5%?

77'"?

perrfess re the suit: The serif provisiea rs net eep/feeble to a arranger ta the said comeramise decree, A suit ey . stranger is set aside the cempremise decree, effects his rights is not earree' by the said proyf_?§_1'eh;' Order .23, Rafe 3% of the Code of Cm'! Fr0cedure.,ee'n;7Ce:' . be read dehors ifs eariier prevision of"f?%e"serr2e& ehaefer. The said provision is only a pari" of :~n;=.:yer;:'_t'_;'re:" Cha,c?te;f' Order 23 of the Code of cm; Pr?:2'ce§:fureEs;hkth presrfrébee provisions for withdrawi and atfjeeamenf 'of $'z;f;ft.w Order 23, Rule 3 cf the Code of".i?rt§;:edure",L2.rc:;/{gees for e s:'tuation where i"fe.e_zf;::far;_£f1'es;;_w 'arrived at" a compromise, Order 23, Rafe'3 ahdlbﬁbe/e~..§'4,§jéfthe Code of Civil ProCedu.FE;.:e5..'No..104 of 1976 read togef.'7er,;r}7__a3r2'.eeEcreer e;a:a"party to the suit is deberred fromruiiifhehsuijf":§§;rVz$e:§r:fn'§».:asfde compromise decree on the. be'}'r:g'uhie--wfu!i Such a party has remedy:':_b;r._ n7eQ:'%:gv.._vepprQer?a'_te .ep,m'rcetior2 before the Court coirsgferned' vzbassed the compromise decree, :,3_"he.r, eafdV"Vp'r'o*2ri$f0h does not bar the present ,3ei*itiQner'wr2g"'wes not as party to the said compromise £:*,eereehA teieje ef'-e:';:i€. As such there is no force in the pef;'2:;'ener$?rhcenéention the: a suit for setting aside the ' cemerqrrésise 'decree entered fﬂi'O between Sr; fvagermei . .e».'e;3c?eSmf;'P"eredevi was barred by 0.2.3', F<'.3~/1 ef' the Code Preeedzsre, The suit at the inefehee of preserri" eeéizieher fer eetéihg esiee Cemeremiee eeeree entered ' " "mic between Smiz Peredevi emf Srf feegermef is V mesmefneefe 5;? Few, En eeeperé er' §.r*:e;'s cenfentier: the eeéiffeeer bee eieeeei reifeeee en A274? 398$ Kereefeice x 33 2,70, Smf, Terebai' 2:: Kr;'shneswemy iféee. S":?:r<:e the safe' ,erov;'s;'en 5:/{Des :20: bar the ,:2et/ﬁoner frem fifmg the suit the decision is ef no ﬁelp to the Eeeetieners "'

19. The reperted deeisiens cited by the appeiian:s7.'4<s»é:%3'es:4ﬁfe' not come to their rescue in any way, in the case__»df.._B'a;A_§¥v§;ar'i*5 Lal (supra), the Compromise petitien cerzcerrsed party er his counsei. The caseéc-f iﬂehu B:.e'!.i': (s'ui);re")r 'V involved representative suit. The""'i€e§;e of ""@§>'£3ei1aiV{hf¢isi5nan (supra) invoiveci the fioutingef ('i2f€:'2s:é.rt's ﬁiviireeivtions by the statutory autherities. Ne fart-hlea'i',eric§ia;i.r=3i"a}%.i.es__'_i:ec;uired to be held in the said cas'e."~_}¢is ihe;C-em;3rii5'i"i?i'ise___Vi3etween the first respendent is'._'ri€)"t V:irr dispute, the decision in the case ofVzi<;is¥*sarn* no appiication ' fer the facts of this evcasiéf-vxgg the SMT..PI1.LAMMA :2. sm: c.

re-groieeci irrI'i;R'V2{)E)6 KAR 1505 what Fe}: for the cees'i'e_er?eti_iee:§t;fV:th'i'ss._C}:Qurt was whether the Misceilaneeus First :7. ';ep.§3eei 'gees v.nﬁe§:--etV;:ainab§e er Regular First Aepeeé was

-«.irj;.eirj'te§eebie';vvfiise eeestien es whe is competent ﬁe fiie the {':?§eg1iie_'r~.;Fi'rg:t Aepeai was met: an issue before this Court in 'ei-§-E;eJ:nrt§a's ease (supra).

re» 2{}.. But in the instant case, whether any fraud is piayedx whether the eutherised representative of the respehderit-}\'5e;'2,A' entereaf Ehte the compromise ﬂetitiﬁfh, whether No.2 had indeed executed the lease-cu_m~xs:eEe presented the seie deed in favour of the why 3: soid the very same sites to are ail the disputed questions. of fectsxgvrwitieh eer":i.:hAe_tEes0ived (my on hoiding the trial. efreiiﬁ,VAjttie~Vi§:ir;;--;,_;-omise decree cannot be set aside err the The appeiéants can seek feritwheiiiiirights by filing a suit: in which have te raise their pieas arae edc£Li<;e':heirse'e.;§e'--rit:'ng evidence.

21. Itis else ¥bene'a'i<:iaIV'te refer to the decision of the AElI_E3'hab_a(j -'é§i'::igi;%.ir{eoee inx'Vth'e"'CVa5e of RAJEET RAM sme:-1 AND ANemee_r}i."p.J., KANPUR eenm AND omens, :i.ir»e;3Verted.'ihiihlﬂ Aiiahabad 189. The reievent eertéee ef . 3TudgrhVe§:.:i: is extracted hereiheeiew:

V' Waugh, however an order eessee' urxfer Oreer _ Rare 3 may be treeied re ee e eieeree ear Sher: egeir:

it ﬁe-:.:e'ee %{3} ere/efeifs epgjeei ege;'nst the decree eeesee' i V.) U:

is ebuneentiy deer that the ercier passed under Qrder .23, Rule 1 er Greer 23, Ruie 3 are not appeeiebie, " V

22. The reeuiteht pesitien is that the remedy av;;L:i:aeh:.ee%teg1' _ party :20 the compromise decree to avoid such a '4 "= 'V is to approach the Court, which recerdeet«_iihuee_'Ceme:*e:e}_ieweVeAA arrangement by making the necessery tietihtiee proceedings. However, if e ;3er3c)'V':Vt*1h"'~:..V'i'vS _eotVa'a* to the compromise decree and/or repteeentative suit, his remedy, as heid by this court in the case ef a suit seeking the appropriate ':'t:%ie«v":§declaration that the compromise _ie"VVe'et enforceabie, etc. In the instant caee; 0p.eh':.t:te»theyegﬁpeliants to seek the reiief of deciaration t%:et1thte'5elAe vs:§'eetf'$ Venﬁteceted by the respondent No.2 in ifeiéeurVetthe'reSpQhdehvtmhie.1 are rwﬁl and void. ;_7§'3.._ I reject theee appeals er: the ehert "',g:,e3Veund of %heie--:te'§ne"b§léty itseif. The éiherty Es expteseiy reserved ' ?g§;g;a'VjtaipeVe_fIenVte..to avail of the euit remedy, tee tee eeeeele are eieeeeee ef er: the ereune ef "RV'_fe'f;e£':2ite§eeeé§%ty eee net en the reerite ef the case end ee the .V"t.-eheeeetteete eee reeuéree te ees; the ieert fee ee the eetéeépetee §"'"""%"§§ 26 Suits, 1 oireet tee office to refund the entire Court fee to_...the appeiieete' side. Further, the office is e%so dérecteﬁ to retL3Vre_"'--«e'E"i'.o'4 the certified cooies; of the armexures/documents prodzgciedv ' apoeiiants to them after coiiecting their..~:~:e.r%oA>< fee record purpose.

25. If the appenants institute vaaghiwvo from today, the Triai Court.§§a1£o«o"d':s.oos§§~e.pf sfaeae as expeditiously as oossibie and i;'*4§'e.r_1\',{ limit of six months from the, @;e_ uihe suit. This direction is given? of their dam of atiotment of the

26. Nee:f}ieesV it is also open to the apoenants f:o_ seek V_:'app':*roApe'sf§eii'e:V interlocutory order in the ani;i'oi';3vete:;..él:Sta oisposai of the main matter', nothing 'v.ei%\:sves fo;:__en§;~ coosféoeratiort of the miseeiteneooe aopiieatioee. ' "%'Eeie';'-__a'%*eA ci§err':éo..,"ee ae having become Lmraeceesary. Seﬁ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court