High CourtsSingle Bench

Sri. B. Pasthasarathy vs Mohammed Haneef

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 2 December 2011 · Citation: (2011) 12 KAR CK 0356

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J
CASE NUMBER
Regular First Appeal No. 480 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 248 words

B. Sreenivase Gowda

1.

This appeal is by the defendant in the suit O.S. 15097/2002 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favor of the plaintiff and to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- p.m.

2.

During the pendency of this appeal, the parties after due negotiation and with the intervention of the Court have got the subject matter of the suit and appeal settled amicably, The parties have reduced the terms; and conditions of their settlement into writing by way of filing a joint memo.

3.

The joint memo signed by the parties and the learned counsel appearing for them, is taken on record.

4.

According, the appeal stands disposed off in terms of the joint memo which is ordered to be treated as part of this order.

5.

Office is directed to draw final decree in terms of the joint memo and it is directed to refund the Court fee paid on this appeal memo in favor of the appellant The respondent plaintiff, who stated to have deposited certain amount in the suit before the Trial Court is permitted to withdraw the same.

6.

The appellant-tenant is granted three weeks time to file an undertaking incorporating the terms and conditions mentioned in the joint memo after serving a copy of the same on the learned counsel for the respondent.