- v. -
Case brief
What is this about?
The Single Judge passed a common order recording a compromise between the appellant and most respondents under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, passing a compromise decree except against Respondent No. 3.
What did the court decide?
Compromise decree passed except against Respondent No. 3; miscellaneous petitions closed.
What the court decided
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY A.S.M.P. No.1086 OF 2015 And
A.S. No.279 of 2011
COMMON ORDER:
A.S.M.P.No.1086 of 2015 is filed under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. to record compromise in terms of the memorandum of compromise annexed to the petition.
2. The appellant and the respondents 1 and 4 to 8 are present before the Court and they are identified by the respective counsels viz., Sri P.R.Prasad, Sri P.Harinath Gupta and Sri K.Srinivas Rao. The terms of the memorandum of compromise are read over to the parties and they are admitted to be true and correct.
3. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the compromise decree is passed, except against respondent No.3.
4. In the result, A.S.M.P. No.1086 of 2015 is ordered and A.S. No.279 of 2011 is disposed of in terms of compromise. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Appeal Suit shall stand closed.
__________________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to record a compromise in the appeal suit and declare the compromise decree.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Appellant
- respondent
Respondent 1
- respondent
Respondent 4
- respondent
Respondent 5
- respondent
Respondent 6
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · June
- Registered
- Case no.
- AS/279/2011
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court