The court recorded a compromise between the appellant-second defendant and the fourth respondent in a second appeal. The second appeal was disposed of in terms of the settled terms without awarding costs.
SAMP No. 3245 of 2013 was allowed; the second appeal was disposed of in terms of the memorandum of compromise.
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
SAMP No. 3245 of 2013 in S.A. No. 1240 of 2003 and S.A. No. 1240 of 2003
Common Judgment:
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2003 passed in A.S. No. 53 of 1997 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1997 passed in O.S. No. 446 of 1993 by the XI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
The appellant-second defendant and the fourth respondent, the legal heir of deceased first respondent/plaintiff, who are the main contesting parties, are present before this Court. It is represented that respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to this petition. The parties are represented by their counsel and both the counsel have identified the appellant and the fourth respondent. The appellantsecond defendant and the fourth respondent, the legal heir of deceased first respondent/plaintiff, have filed a petition in SAMP No. 3245 of 2013, under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, along with joint memorandum of compromise, seeking to record the compromise in terms thereof. The contents of the said compromise petition are read over to the parties and 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. I am convinced that the parties have voluntarily entered into the settlement with their free Will.
In view of the same, SAMP No.3245 of 2013 is allowed and the terms of memorandum of compromise are recorded. The second appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the compromise.
However, in the circumstances, no costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this second appeal shall stand closed.
______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
Date: 27.12.2013 Nsr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a compromise petition under Section 151 CPC read with Order XXIII Rule 3 should be recorded given the perception of no coercion.
In the disposition of a second appeal via compromise, whether costs should be awarded.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant-Second Defendant
Fourth Respondent
B. Chandra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
