C.R.P. No. 301/2015. Case: A.K. Jeelani and Ors. Vs Akkayamma and Ors.. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | C.R.P. No. 301/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Pruthvi Wodeyar, Adv. and For Respondents: V.F. Kumbar, Adv. |
| Judges | B. S. Patil, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXIII Rules 2, 3(3); Section 115; Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 |
| Judgement Date | July 03, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Order:
B. S. Patil, J.
-
This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, thereby condoning the delay of 1806 days in filing the miscellaneous petition under Order XXIII Rule 3(3) CPC seeking to set aside the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 596/2001.
-
Facts stated in nutshell, are that petitioners are claiming to be the owners of property bearing Sy. No. 54 situated at Sathanur village, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 2 acres. The said land was allegedly granted to the father of the petitioners during the year 1962. After the death of their father, petitioners succeeded to the property. Petitioners had filed a suit in O.S. No. 596/2001 against the father of respondents 2 to 4 - late Hemanna for permanent injunction. The respondents herein were also subsequently impleaded as defendants in the said suit. A compromise was entered into between the parties to the suit including the respondents herein. Based on the compromise petition filed, a compromise decree was passed on 24.01.2003.
-
Having kept quiet for more than three years, father of the respondents Hemanna, alone filed another suit in O.S. No. 1163/2006 on 30.01.2006 seeking a declaration that he was the absolute owner in possession of the property and the compromise decree in O.S. No. 596/2001 was not binding on him. During the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff therein Hemanna died and the suit was prosecuted by the present respondents as his legal heirs.
-
Suit O.S. No. 1163/2006 was based on the allegation of dishonour of cheques amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs allegedly issued by the petitioners herein to the respondent. The defendants -petitioners herein resisted the said suit contending that the suit was not maintainable. They also urged that the suit was barred by limitation.
-
A full fledged trial was conducted. By a judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011, the suit was dismissed recording a finding that plaintiff failed to prove that he was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 596/2001 was not binding on him. The court below further found that the oral and documentary evidence on record disclosed that the defendants therein - petitioners herein were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled for the decree of injunction.
-
It is thus clear that issues raised in the suit were adjudicated on merits and decided based on the evidence on record after a full fledged trial. The court, while dismissing the suit has also held that the plaintiff therein had failed to plead that compromise had been arrived at fraudulently or was the result of misrepresentation and hence the compromise could not be challenged. It has also observed that compromise decree could be challenged only in the same proceeding and initiation of fresh suit was barred under the Code of Civil Procedure.
-
After dismissal of the suit, respondents herein filed a miscellaneous petition in Misc. No. 1/2012 challenging the compromise decree dated 23.01.2003 by contending that the previous suit had been filed and prosecuted before a wrong forum hence, as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, they were entitled for exclusion of the time taken in prosecuting...
To continue reading
Request your trial