Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
Hanumantharayappa and others —Appellant
Vs.
A. Krishnappa and another —Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1670, 1672, 1758 and 1759 of 2001
Decided on : 29-11-2001
Stranger - Setting Aside of Compromise Decree - Order 23 Rule 3(B), Order 47 Rule 1 - [Order 23, Rule 3(B), Order 47, Rule 1] - The court discussed the applications filed under Order 23, Rule 3(B) and Order 47, Rule 1 for setting aside the compromise decree. The court considered the interest of the Respondent in the subject matter of the suit and the conduct of the parties in obtaining the compromise decree. The court found that the compromise decree was obtained by resorting to undesirable practices and suppressed material facts, leading to the conclusion that it cannot be sustained in law. The court held that the Respondent, though not a party to the original proceedings, had sufficient interest in the subject matter and could maintain the application for setting aside the compromise decree. The court also emphasized that the decree affected the person seeking its setting aside, and therefore, the Respondent could be considered a 'person aggrieved' under Order 47, Rule 1.
Fact of the Case:
The housing society filed a suit for specific performance of a contract. The suit was compromised and a compromise decree was passed. The Respondent, not a party to the original proceedings, filed applications under Order 23, Rule 3(B) and Order 47, Rule 1 to set aside the compromise decree, claiming interest in the subject matter of the suit. The Trial Court found irregularities and fraudulent practices in obtaining the compromise decree and set it aside, restoring the suit to its original file.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise decree was obtained through undesirable practices and suppressed material facts, leading to the conclusion that it cannot be sustained in law. The court held that the Respondent, though not a party to the original proceedings, had sufficient interest in the subject matter and could maintain the application for setting aside the compromise decree. The court also emphasized that the decree affected the person seeking its setting aside, and therefore, the Respondent could be considered a 'person aggrieved' under Order 47, Rule 1.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court could have acted at the instance of persons like Respondent for the purpose of setting aside the earlier compromise decree?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Respondent, though not a party to the original proceedings, had sufficient interest in the subject matter and could maintain the application for setting aside the compromise decree. The court also emphasized that the decree affected the person seeking its setting aside, and therefore, the Respondent could be considered a 'person aggrieved' under Order 47, Rule 1.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and parties were left to make appropriate applications before the Trial Court for any further relief during the pendency of the suit.
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order dated 12.2.2001 passed in Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 362 of 2000 and 363 of 2000 on the file of the XXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, wherein the learned Trial Judge has allowed the said Miscellaneous Petitions and had set aside the compromise decree dated 17.7.1999 passed in O.S. No. 4354 of 1999 on the file of the same Court.
2. The impugned order came to be passed on two applications filed by the Respondents herein. One under the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 which came to be numbered as Miscellaneous No. 363 of 2000 and another under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3(B) came to be numbered as Miscellaneous No. 362/2000 and both praying for setting aside the order.
3. In the earlier compromise decree referred to above, the said applications came to be allowed. The Plaintiffs in the said suit have preferred Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1670 of 2001 and 1672 of 2001 as against that order, the Defendants in the suit have preferred Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1758 of 2001 and 1759 of 2001. Under the circumstances, all the four revision petitions have been clubbed together and have been heard together. The first Respondent is common in all the four petitions who is the applicant in the Miscellaneous case.
4. Heard the learned Counsel Sri S.A. Kalagi appearing for the Petitioners in CRP Nos. 1758 and 1759 of 2001, Sri H.M. Mariyappa, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1672 and 1670 of 2001 and Sri V.B. Shivakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 in all these revision petitions.
5. Elaborate Submissions have been made. The matter was heard at some length and is being disposed of by this common order.
6. The brief facts that led to file all the above civil revision petitions are that the Petitioners in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1670 and 1672 of 2001, which is a housing society had filed O.S. No. 4354 of 1999 praying for the relief of specific performance of contract as per agreement dated 10.3.1999. It is alleged that it is an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants for conveying an extent of 2 acres 22 guntas of land in Sy. No. 69/2 of Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, presently known as Basaveshwara Nagar. The Plaintiff also averred that this contract came to be entered into pursuant to earlier agreement dated 28.1.1976 and there were certain intervening circumstances when the land has been acquired by BDA in the year 1977 and later it has been denotified in the year 1998 and subsequent to which the suit had been filed for specific performance.
7. The Defendants entered appearance on service of notice. The suit came to be compromised and a compromise decree dated 17.7.1999 came to be passed by the Court. An application was filed by the parties under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3(B) and it is this compromise decree which was sought to be set aside by the two miscellaneous applications filed by the Respondent.
8. The case of the Respondent was that he also had interest in the property by an agreement dated (sic) executed by the very Defendants who are the predecessors and in so far as an agreement in their favour is concerned, the Respondent had called upon the owners to perform their part of the contract under the agreement for which they have issued a legal notice and in view of the dispute as the contract was not performed, an arbitrator came to be appointed and the arbitrator had passed an award compelling the specific performance of the agreement and that the award was sought to be executed by filing an Execution Case No. 568/1999 and as per the directions of the Court in the said execution proceedings a registered sale deed in favour of the Respondent had been executed as per order dated 25.8.1999. In view of such developments, the Respondents were the persons very much interested in the matter which was the subject matter of O.S. No. 43
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
