LAXMAN AND ORS. Vs. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 have filed the above writ petition challenging the order dated 6.11.2014 made in O.S. No. 124/2014 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gokak, refusing the Compromise Petition filed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, he had entered into an agreement of sale with defendants 1 and 2 on 12.12.2000 and subsequently, defendants 1 and 2 have executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant -3 on 7.6.2004. Since the defendants -1 and 2 have not come forward to execute sale deed in terms of the agreement, the plaintiff filed original suit in O.S. 124/2004 for specific performance to enforce the agreement executed by the defendants 1 and 2 and to execute the sale deed after receipt of balance sale consideration, etc. Defendant -1 filed written statement on 15.01.2009, and defendant -2 adopted the writ statement filed by defendant -1. In the written statement defendants -1 and 2 have denied in paras 3 and 4, stating that the defendants never executed any agreement in favour of plaintiff nor received any earnest money of Rs. 50,000/ - from the plaintiff and till today they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. Para -3 and 4 of the written statement reads as under:

(3.) IT is not in dispute that, after completion of evidence the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 have filed Compromise Petition under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. In the compromise petition the defendants 1 and 2 have withdrawn all the objections raised in the written statement. The learned trial Judge, after considering the entire compromise petition was pleased to held as under: