P.R. DHANANJAYA, SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA AND SMT. NARASAMMA Vs. SRI. H. NAGARAJU, SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AND SRI. H. NARASIMHAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' revision petition aggrieved by the order of the XXX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore rejecting the application filed under O 23 R 3(a) r/w S. 151, CPC in OS 7435/2012. There appears to be a transaction between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent who are both advocates. In connection with dealing a property, the 3rd respondent is shown to have invested amount with the petitioner amounting to Rs. 51 lakhs i.e., Rs. 8 lakhs by cash and Rs. 40 lakhs by way of cheques. However, it is pleaded by the 3rd respondent that the amount which they have obtained in dealing with immovable property is sought to be invested on the request of the petitioners. In view of the submission of the petitioners counsel that there was series of communication and understanding between the parties in connection with payment of amount, as the negotiations failed, matter was sought to be settled in the Bar Association amidst several advocates and thereafter, compromise petition was filed before the civil court in the suit filed for recovery. In that, there are terms to return the amount in favour of the 3rd respondent, by the petitioners. The said compromise is entered into during October 2012. Thereafter, in the suit so filed by the petitioner herein before the civil court in OS 7435/2012, application came to be filed during July 2013 seeking for recalling the compromise entered into as per O 23 R 3, CPC. The trial court rejected the application as not maintainable. Hence, this revision petition.

(2.) HEARD the counsel representing the parties.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents submitted, the very conduct of the petitioner itself demonstrates that having entered into compromise during October 2012 after lapse of nearly 8 to 9 months he has approached the trial court by filing an application for recalling the compromise and also after hearing this applicant/petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the trial court on 21.8.2013 which is under challenge.