SUBRAMANYAM AND COMPANY Vs. MUNISWAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O. S. No. 4950 of 1987 on the file of the XX Additional city Civil Judge, Bangalore has filed this revision under Section 115 of the CPC challenging the legality and Correctness of the common order dated 21-1-1999 on I. As. 7 and 11. Respondents herein are the defendants. LA. 7 is an application under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC filed in court on 11-3-1994 signed by the plaintiff and the defendants other than defendants 1 and 2 reporting compromise in the matter. LA. 11 is the application filed by the defendants on 14-8-1995 under Order 23, Rule 9 (Proviso) read with Section 151 of the CPC requesting the Court not to record the compromise and to proceed with the trial of the suit. Learned trial Judge, after hearing both the parties, by the order impugned, has rejected LA. 7 and allowed LA. 11. This order is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) HEARD Sri Raghavan, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri Srinivasan, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri Ramesh for respondents 3 to 11 and Sri Ramaswamy Shastry for respondents 12 to 15.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are: plaintiff-Company described as M/s. Subramanyam and Company, a partnership firm represented by one N. A. Jayaram, filed the suit originally on 8-11-1987 against defendants 1 to 9 for specific performance of contract and to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of certain lands at Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, more fully prescribed in the plaint schedule. The other defendants are brought on record on 11-3-1994 in view of the orders on application LA. VI. Plaintiffs' case is that the defendants entered into an agreement to sell dated 26-6-1981 agreeing to sell those properties subject to certain terms and conditions. Defendants appeared and resisted the suit and it is pending trial. In the meantime, on 11-3-1994, an application LA. 7 purported to be one under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC was filed in Court signed by the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 8, defendants 8 and 12 to 14 were shown as minors and their respective guardians signed on their behalf. How ever, no application was filed on behalf of defendants 8 and 12 to 14 as required under Order 32, Rule 7 (1) though they were shown as minors. Along with this LA. VII, two other applications LA. V, dated 9-3-1994 under Order 22, Rule 10 of the CPC to implead N. A. Jayaram as 2nd plaintiff and another application I. A. VI, dated 11-3-1994 under Order 1, rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC for impleading defendants 11 to 15, showing defendants 12 to 15 as minors, were filed. The suit was not for hearing either on 9-3-1994 or on 11-3-1994. An application under section 151 of the CPC (LA. IV) is filed on Court on 9-3-1994 for advancing the case and accordingly case is taken up on 11-3-1994, though original date of hearing was on 22-4-1994 (on 15-2-1994 it had been adjourned to 22-4-1994 ).