IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

R.F.A.No.111/2014

BETWEEN : THE ULLAL TOWN MUNICIPALITY (PREVIOUSLY ULLAL TOWN PANCHAYATH), ULLAL TOWN, TALUK, MANGALORE-574159 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER CHETAN S. KOLAVI S/O SADASHIV R KOLAVI. ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI K.ANANDARAMA, ADV.)

AND : 1. MR HAMEED S/O HYDROSE HAJI, AGED 47 YEARS, SHASHS COMPLEX, BENDOREWELL, KANKANADY, MANGALORE-575002, PROPREITOR OF M/S MANGALORE CONSTRUCTIONS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SHAHS COMPLEX, BENDOREWELL, KANKANADY, MANGALORE-575002.

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K.DISTRICT, MANGALORE-575001.

3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING BOARD,

- 2 -

KAVERI BHAVAN, -560 009. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.KRISHNAPPA, ADV. FOR R-1; SMT.H.R.ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-2; R-3 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED PASSED IN O.S.No.75/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K., PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.75/2011 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Mangalore, D.K. [‘Trial Court’ for short]

2. Today, appellant as well as the respondent

No.1 have filed the compromise petition under Order XXIII

Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reporting settlement of dispute between the parties amicably.

3. Learned counsel Sri.K.Anandarama representing the appellant – The Ullal Town

- 3 -

Municipality as well as the learned counsel

Sri.M.Krishnappa appearing for the respondent No.1 are present before the Court in terms of the special permission granted by this Court to appear before this

Court to present the compromise petition.

4. Sri.Rayappa, Commissioner, City Municipal

Council, Ullal, D.K is present through Virtual Court

[online] and is duly identified by his learned counsel

Mr.Ravi. Mr.Hameed – respondent No.1 is also present before the court through Virtual Court [online] and is duly identified by his learned counsel Sri.Sridhar Yenmakaje.

5. The compromise petition is signed by the appellant and the respondent No.1 as well as their learned counsel appearing for the parties along with the learned counsel [local advocates] who have identified the parties. The parties to the compromise petition declare

- 4 - that they have entered into compromise on their free will without there being any force or coercion from anybody in whatsoever manner and they have read over the contents of the compromise petition and subscribed their signature to the same.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant

Sri.K.Anandarama has handed over the cheque dated

07.06.2021 for Rs.12,92,389/- drawn in favour of the respondent No.1 to the learned counsel

Sri.M.Krishnappa appearing for the respondent No.1 who acknowledges the receipt of the same, in terms of para 6 of the compromise petition.

7. Both the parties declare before the Court that they shall abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise petition in true letter and spirit.

8. The compromise petition being the settlement of interse dispute between the appellant and the respondent No.1, there is no legal prohibition to

- 5 - accept the same. Accordingly, the same is placed on record.

Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

The compromise petition shall become the part and parcel of the modified decree.

Registry shall draw the modified decree accordingly.

In terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the appellant is entitled to refund of Court fee in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka

Court Fees and Suits Valuations Act, 1958.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

NC.