Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Deluxe Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2019 passed by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 4854/2011, which decreed the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent, and damages. During the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for both parties jointly submitted that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties outside the court. They pointed out that a joint memo regarding the terms of settlement had already been moved before the court. It was further submitted that in the execution proceedings, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/-. The court, after perusing the joint memo, accepted the settlement and disposed of the appeal as settled. The court also directed that the appellant be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in the execution proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar on 9th July 2020.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise and Settlement - Section 96 CPC - Joint Memo - Parties to an ejectment suit filed a joint memo of settlement before the appellate court, stating that the matter has been amicably settled outside court. The court accepted the settlement and disposed of the appeal as settled, permitting the appellant to withdraw the amount deposited in execution proceedings. (Para 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal can be disposed of as settled in view of the joint memo of settlement filed by the parties.
Final Decision
The appeal is disposed of as settled in terms of the joint memo. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,82,000/- deposited in the execution proceedings.
Law Points
- Settlement of dispute
- Compromise decree
- Withdrawal of deposit
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 10
Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar
Sri. Anantha Narayana B.N. (for appellant), Sri. A.N. Gangadharaiah (for respondents)
M/s. Deluxe Roadlines Pvt. Ltd.
Sri. M.A. Krishna Murthy (since deceased by his LRs: Smt. M.K. Shantha, M.K. Arvind, Smt. Ranjini Shashidhar)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular First Appeal against decree for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to challenge the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2019 in O.S. No. 4854/2011.
Filing Reason
Appellant was aggrieved by the decree of ejectment, arrears of rent and damages passed by the trial court.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) decreed the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages on 2.11.2019.
Issues
Whether the appeal can be disposed of as settled in view of the joint memo of settlement filed by the parties.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the matter has been amicably settled outside the court and a joint memo has been moved.
It was further submitted that in execution proceedings, the appellant had deposited Rs. 1,82,000/-.
Ratio Decidendi
When parties to an appeal file a joint memo of settlement stating that the matter has been amicably settled outside court, the court may dispose of the appeal as settled and permit withdrawal of any amount deposited in execution proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties outside the Court.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that in the execution proceedings, the appellant had deposited `1,82,000/- which the appellant may be permitted to withdraw.
Procedural History
The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages on 2.11.2019. The appellant filed R.F.A. No. 93 of 2020 before the High Court. During the hearing, parties filed a joint memo of settlement and the appeal was disposed of as settled on 9.7.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 96
