RAVI ALIAS RUDRAGOUDA Vs. LAKKAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants Sri I. G. Gachchinmath and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) BY order dated 9-11-1995, passed by the hon'ble R. Ramakrishna, j. , the appellants were permitted to withdraw the appeal as per memo dated 16-10-1995 and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The order dated 9-11-1995, is being quoted herewith verbatim:

(3.) AFTER a lapse of almost one year on 28-11-1996, the present appellants have moved this la. Vi with a prayer that the order dated 9-11-1995 permitting the appellants to withdraw the appeal and dismissing the appeal as withdrawn be recalled. This application has been made on the ground that after withdrawal of the appeal, a joint wardy was given on the basis of compromise entered between the parties with reference to the suit properties and it has further been stated that later on when it was being given effect to by the village accountant vide m. e. No. 3520 and when it was sent for certification, the respondent resiled and filed objections before the tahsildar that she is not agreeable to the said compromise and to the certification of m. e. No. 3520 and under such circumstances, the appellants had to move this application for recalling the order dated 9-11-1995. the instrumentality of the court has got its own status and none can be allowed to make mockery of it. It is not that every now and then a party or appellant may come and say i don't want to press this appeal or i want to withdraw and when he will be allowed to withdraw it and once the order permitting the withdrawal is ordered, later on coming with an application to recall the order. No person can be permitted to make fun of the court in such a manner and we have to take a strong view of it. if the respondent is resiling from the agreement, then it is always open to avail the proper remedy to enforce that agreement by proper forum as well and that the applicant must try to enforce that compromise or proceed with the enforcement or execution of the compromise. It cannot be that merely because the respondent is resiling then appellant should be allowed to seek the withdrawal of the order of dismissal of appeal which order this court passed at the instance of appellant seeking dismissal of appeal as withdrawn. It would have been better if once the compromise has been entered into, that compromise should have been filed along with the application jointly signed for the decision in terms of the compromise. Instead of doing that appellants sought withdrawal of the appeal and its dismissal. Once opted that course, the appellant cannot be allowed to resile therefrom. The settlement outside the court had taken place, then parties have to bear with that and are bound thereby as well as to enforce that according to law. I do not find any good ground to act under Section 151, civil procedure code or order 47, Civil Procedure Code to recall this court's order dated 9-11-1995. The application is rejected. subject to the above observations, the application is rejected. the order dated 9-11-1995, stands as it is.