in the high court of karnataka at bangalore dated this the 14th day of ...

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL.445/2012 AND REGULAR FIRST APPEAL.446/2012 IN RFA.NO.445/2012 BETWEEN M/S RELIANCE WEBSTORE LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT H BLOCK 1ST FLOOR, DIRUBHAI AMBANI KNOWLEDGE CITY NAVI MUMBAI-400710 ITS CIRCLE OFFICE AT NO.12/2 SUBRAMANYA ARCADE, TOWER B, GROUND FLOOR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 029 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.PADMANABHAN G ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V BHAT, ADV.) AND SRI G SRINIVASA RANGAN S/O LATE P V GOPALA NARASIMHAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.492P, 7TH CROSS JAYANAGAR, 7TH BLOCK WEST BANGALORE-560 082

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.N R NAGARAJ, ADV.) RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.11.2011 PASSED IN

2

O.S.NO.8710/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

IN RFA.NO.446/2012 BETWEEN M/S RELIANCE WEBSTORE LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT H BLOCK 1ST FLOOR, DIRUBHAI AMBANI KNOWLEDGE CITY NAVI MUMBAI-400710 ITS CIRCLE OFFICE AT NO.12/2 SUBRAMANYA ARCADE, TOWER B, GROUND FLOOR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 029 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.PADMANABHAN G (DEFENDANT NO.2 IN THE SUIT IS THE OLD CIRCLE OFFICE OF THE DEFENDANT-1 & HENCE NOT SEPARATELY MADE PARTY) ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. S V BHAT, ADV.) AND SRI G SRINIVASA RANGAN S/O LATE P V GOPALA NARASIMHAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.492P, 7TH CROSS JAYANAGAR, 7TH BLOCK WEST BANGALORE-560 082

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.N R NAGARAJ, ADV.) RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.11.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1852/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH-27), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3

JUDGMENT

These two appeals by the parties are directed against common judgment passed in O.S.No.1852/2009 filed by the landlord while O.S.No.8710/2010 was filed by the person claiming to be in physical possession of the property in part performance of the contract.

2.

By the impugned judgment, the trial court has

disposed of both the suits whereby the suit filed by the landlord is decreed directing the occupant who was a tenant to vacate the premises in question. same

common

occupant/tenant

judgment, seeking

the

suit

specific

But, in the

filed

by

the

performance

of

agreement to sell has been dismissed.

3.

Parties along with their counsel are present.

They have filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w.Section 151 of CPC reporting that they have amicably settled the dispute.

The terms are incorporated in the

compromise petition which on examination, I find lawful. The parties have agreed to the terms and conditions of the

4

compromise petition and they have signed it.

It is

accepted.

The judgment and decree in O.S.Nos.1852/2009 is modified in terms of the compromise arrived between the parties while confirming the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.8710/2010.

Both the appeals are disposed of in

terms of this order.

No costs

The appellant is entitled to refund of the Court fee as is permissible.

SD/JUDGE

vg/-