NINGAPPA PATRAPPA Vs. KALLAPPA PATRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant defendant is challenging a final decree dated 6. 6. 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), ranebennur in O. S. No. 142 of 1988.

(2.) RESPONDENT plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 142 of 1988. A compromise petition was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 6. 8. 1990 by the parties. According to the averments in the appeal memo, plaintiff had expired on 30. 11. 1994. It is further averred in the appeal memo that the plaintiff did not act upon the compromise petition. The appellant complains that without hearing the parties and without considering as to whether a final decree is passed in the changed circumstances or not, the learned Judge has chosen to pass the impugned order. This order is challenged.

(3.) NOTICE was issued. Respondents have entered appearance. Appellant while reiterating the facts and grounds, raises a plea that whenever a final decree is drawn in terms of the preliminary decree, a notice is necessary so that the judge is informed of subsequent developments, if any, for the purpose of proper adjudication. In the case on hand, plaintiff had died in the year 1994. Same has not been noticed. Legal representatives have not been brought on record. According to the counsel, a compromise preliminary decree was violated and in that view of the matter no finding on the final decree could have been passed. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents would say that there is no challenge to the preliminary decree and therefore the order need not be interfered with by this court in this appeal.