The High Court of Telangana disposed of a second appeal filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC based on a joint memorandum of compromise dated 18.02.2020, with costs borne by the parties.
The appeal was disposed of based on a joint memorandum of compromise; parties to bear their own 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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OFMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLAKODANDA RAM
|.A.NO.1 0F 2020
IN/AND
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1012 OF 2013
S.A.NO.1013 0F 2013:
Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC againstthe Judgment and Decree madein A.S.No.27 of 2010 dated 03.08.2013 onthe file of the Court of the lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.Preferred against the Decree in O'S.No.298 of 2008 dated 19.01.2010 on the file of thecourt of the Additional Junior civil Judge, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, Ranga ReddyDistrict.
coMMoN c.T. tN SA.NO.101213 & tA.NO.1/20 AND SACMP.NO.2637/13: Between:
Pratap Rao, S/o Madhav Rao, Occ:- Business,R/o H.No.1-58/7,Main Road, Madinaguda, R.R.Dsitrict.
...APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDENTNO.1
AND
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS
(SA is dismissed as not pressed in so far as Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are concerned vide Court Order dated. 05.O3.2021)
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDENTS Nos.2 &3
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the accompanying memorandum of terms of compromise that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the said compromise and allow the appeal in SA No. 1012 of 2012 in terms of this Compromise and pass such other decree in the interest of justice.
, \q, ,vq t rvuv,
SAMP. NO: 2637 oF 2013
Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgement and decree in O.S.No.29g of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior civil Judge, Kukatpally at Miyapur dt.1g.o1_2olo and as confirmed by the Judgement and decree on the fire of the court of the ilr Additionar District Judge, RR District in A.s.No.27 of 2010 dt.03.08.2013 pending the finar disposar of the main Second Appeal.
COMMON C.T.t N SAM P.NO.21 85 0F 2016 AND I.A. NO.1 0 F 2021:
SAMP. NO: 2185 OF 2016
Petition under Rure 32 of civir Rured of practice that reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit that this Hon'ble court may be please to permit the petitioners to represent through their registered GpA Horder Mohd.Rafiq in present second Appeal and pass such other or order as this Hon'bre court deems fit in the interest of justice.
Between:
(All'1 to 3 Represented by their GpA Horder Modh. Rafiq, s/o. Mohd. saduilah, aged: 37 years, Occ: Business,.Rl/o. ftat flo.2OS, 5,4 Fioor, t<rncnJ; A-p;,#;;is, Kakatiyanagar, chintar, eutubuillpur wanaaI nloerabad-500055, ;idi-' -'''' registered document bearing No.Eiook rv, 92 br 2oio, negisi"r"o iriifiisno, Marredpally, Secunderabad.
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS Nos.1 to 3
AND
(Respondents 2 &3 are not necessary)
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT Nos. 4 & 5
Kal lga Neuuy L,rsr.r r-r.
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Order lll Rule 4 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit that this Hon'ble Court may be please to permit the petitioners to revoke vakalath of their earlier Advocate Sri.Jayesh Bhatt thereby receive vakalath of Sri.Sridhar Lendalay, Advocate on record to represent present Second Appeal on their behalf and pass such other or order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest ofjustice.
Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. K MAHIPATHI RAO
Counsel forthe Respondents: SRl. SRIDHAR LENDALAY
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
r(anga KeuuyLJlstIIUt.
HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
l.A.No.1 of 2020
in/a nd S.A No. 1012 ol 2O13
COMMON ORDER:
l.A.No.l of 2020 is filed under order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 15'1 C.P.C. with a prayer to record the compromise and allow the Appeal in terms thereof.
S.A No.1012 of 2013 arises out of judgment dated 03.08.2013 rendered by the learned lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar in A.S.No.27 of 2010.
Both the parties are present in the Court and produced their respective identity proofs. They are all identified personally by the learned counsel appearing for them. They stated that on the advise of the elders, they had setiled the dispute among themselves and all of them agreed that out of their own free will and volition, they have enteredjoint memorandum of compromrse, which was reduced into writing on 18 02 2020.
Hence, LA,No.1 of 2020 is ordered and the Appeal is disposed of in terms of memorandum of compromise. The parties to bear their own costs. The terms of compromise shall form part of the order.
N/liscellaneous petitrons, if any pending, shall stand disposed
of
Sd/. K.SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
\
SECTION OFFICER
To,
C (
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0510312021
'I
S 14:
v^.
6,
t
o (
Ll. 1g Jtiii ?t?1
J.{
c
COMMON ORDER
|.A.NO.1 0F2020 IN/AND SA.No.1012 ot2013
DISPOSINGOF THE SECOND APPEAL
%b))
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can dispose of the second appeal under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC upon recording a compromise agreement entered into by the parties.
Whether the terms of the compromise should form part of the judicial order.
Pratap Rao
Preetham Singh
Dilip Singh
Vijay Singh
Pochaiah
G Kistaiah
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
