NIJALINGAPPA RAMAPPA GOKAVI Vs. RAMAPPA SHETEPPA GOKAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri. Akshay A. Katti, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Anand Ashtekar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5, Ms. Sarita Shreyakar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 have today presented a compromise petition entered into by the appellants and the respondents under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.

(2.) In view of the COVID-19 situation and in view of the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.7338/2020 (Suo Moto), wherein a Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of this Court has held that physical presence of the parties is not needed for compromise petition, mutual consent divorce or acceptance of the sureties, the presence of the appellants and the respondents including the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent No.3 is dispensed with.

(3.) The said compromise petition has been signed by the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent No.3 being her son namely Sri. Satyagonda S/o. Bhimagouda Patil, in whose favour the Power of Attorney has been executed and the original of the said Power of Attorney has been produced at Schedule III of the compromise petition.