Parvatgouda S/O Chandangouda Patil Vs Prakash S/O Venkatesh Kusanur

THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27/02/2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.61/2007 BY 1^ST DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27/06/2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.381/2004 BY 1^ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN), HUBBALI AND ETC

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18193 RSA No. 5262 of 2009

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

¶23

The appellant is represented by learned counsel Sri.Dinesh M Kulukarni with a special vakalath and the general power of attorney holder of the appellant, who is none else than his son, is also present before this court.

¶24

The appellant and the respondent along with their counsels are present before the Court and they are duly identified. The counsel filed compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC stating that the matter has been settled between them. It is submitted that the order of this Court dated 20.11.2025 also records such settlement, which was reached on that day.

¶25

It is now submitted that in pursuance to the said the settlement, the compromise petition has been filed whereby the respondent has to pay the sum of ₹2,00,000/- to the appellant.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent hands over the demand draft dated 12.12.2025 bearing No.460918 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., for a sum of ₹2,00,000/- to the

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18193 RSA No. 5262 of 2009

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

appellant. The parties acknowledge the settlement and the appellant confirms the receipt of the said demand draft.

¶30

In view of the above, the impugned judgment has to

¶31

be set aside and the appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

¶32

It is also noticed by this Court that by virtue of the compromise, the appellant has given up all his claims in the suit schedule properties seeking specific performance of contract.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also hands over the original sale deed to the respondent, which is acknowledged by the respondent. Hence the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(i) The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.02.2009 in R.A.No.61/2007 passed by the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Sitting at Hubballi, is set aside.

¶36