The court permitted a power of attorney holder to represent the appellant and recorded a compromise between the parties in O.S. No. 212 of 1999, disposing of the appeal in accordance with the agreement without costs.
The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise; the suit in O.S. No. 212 of 1999 was decreed accordingly; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
A.S.M.P. No. 2043 of 2010
in A.S. No. 2157 of 2004
and
A.S. No. 2157 of 2004
Common Judgment:
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2004 passed in O.S. No.212 of 1999 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
Sri P. Bhagwan, S/o Dasaratha Rama Rao, aged 60 years, retired Bank Employee filed an affidavit stating that he has been authorized to be the power of attorney holder of the appellant to initiate legal proceedings, to enter into compromise, withdraw the proceedings etc., vide registered General Power of Attorney bearing document No.47 of 2010, dated 20.04.2010 since she left for USA to visit their son, and that the said power of attorney is still validly subsisting. The GPA holder is no other than the husband of the appellant. He seeks permission of the Court to appear and act on behalf of the appellant. Permission is, accordingly, accorded.
The GPA holder and the respondent are present before the Court. The parties are represented by their counsel and both the counsel have identified the GPA Holder of the appellant and the respondent. The parties have also identified one another. They have filed a petition in ASMP No. 2043 of 2010, under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, along with memorandum of compromise, seeking to record the compromise in terms thereof. Both the parties have agreed to the terms of the compromise and categorically stated that they have entered into the compromise in the interest of both the
parties and that there is no coercion or inducement in entering into the compromise.
In view of the same, ASMP No.2043 of 2010 is allowed and the terms of memorandum of compromise are recorded. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the compromise. Consequently, the suit in O.S. No. 212 of 1999 is decreed in terms of the compromise. However, in the circumstances, no costs.
______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
Date: 08.10.2010 Nsr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should record the compromise filed by the parties in the civil suit and appellate proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Bhagwan
B. CHANDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
