Sha Sagarmal Sukhraj and Co. vs P. Jagadesh Kumar

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 26728/2007 dated 23.1.2010 on the file of the 26th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The appellant was the defendant in the suit and the respondent was the plaintiff. The suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property. The court below has decreed the suit in the following terms:

The suit of plaintiff is decreed with costs. The counter claim of the defendant is dismissed. Hereby, the defendant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff within three months from the dale of this order.

When the matter was posted before this Court on 8.6.2010, the Court suggested the parties to explore the possibility of settlement of the matter. Today, when the matter is token up for admission, learned Counsel for the parties submit that the matter has been settled between the parties. They have filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC reporting the terms of settlement, which are as under:

Under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties in. the above case at the intervention of the Court resolved their disputes and differences and files the following compromise petition.

The appellant in the above case submits that the above appeal may kindly be dismissed as not pressed. The appellant prays that he may be granted time till 30.9.2011 for him to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule property in favour of the respondent. The appellant submits that he will not seek any further time in vacating the schedule premises.

The respondent submits that he has no objection in granting time till 30.9.2011 to the appellant in vacating the schedule property.

The appellant undertakes to pay the damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month regularly to the respondent during his stay in me schedule shop without committing any default in payment of the damage amount. If the appellant has committed single default in payment of the monthly damage amount, the respondent is at liberty to initiate execution proceedings against the appellant to recover vacant possession of the schedule properly.

The appellant undertakes that he will vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property in favour of. the respondent on or before 30.9.2011. The appellant undertakes that he will not induct any third party into the schedule property.

The respondent confirms that he is holding a sum of Rs. 5.000/- as advance/security deposit and undertakes to pay the same to the appellant at the time of receiving vacant possession of the schedule premises.

Court fee may kindly be ordered to be refunded.

Wherefore under the facts and circumstances stated above, the appellant and the respondent prays that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to dispose of the above matter in terms of the joint memo in the ends of justice.

Sri Suresh Kumar S. Jain, partner of the appellant company and Sri Jagadesh Kumar, respondent are present before the Court. It is evident from the application for compromise that the parties have signed the same. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the compromise entered into between the panics is lawful, just and reasonable. Consequently, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise memo. The judgment and decree impugned herein stands modified accordingly. Draw the decree as above.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has handed over three post-dated cheques drawn in favour of the respondent to the learned Counsel for the respondent towards damages for the entire period of 15 months granted to the appellant for vacating the suit schedule property as per the aforesaid joint memo. Learned Counsel for the respondent acknowledges the receipt of the same.

Since the compromise entered into between the parties is as suggested by this Court, the appellant is entitled for refund of the entire court fee paid along with the memorandum of appeal as held by a Division Bench of this Court in A. Sreeramaiah Vs. The South Indian Bank Ltd., . Therefore, I direct the Registry to refund the entire court fee paid along with the memorandum of appeal to the appellant. No costs.