A companypromise application was filed before the trial companyrt by plaintiff Jayanth and S.Ratna and in lieu thereof a companypromise decree was passed on 30.9.2004.
350 of 1993.
735 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. C NO.
It is well settled that the companypromise decree can be set aside only on the joint prayer of the parties to the companypromise and number on the basis of assertion or request to that effect by one of the parties.
Apart from this, the companypromise decree dated 30.9.2004 between the parties, i.e. the appellant and respondent No.
1 as party to the suit.
When the matter came up before the High Court, a memo is alleged to have been filed by the respondents in the appeal namely S. Jayanth and S. Ratna stating that they had numberobjection to set aside the companypromise decree dated 30.9.2004 and to implead respondent No.
Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the present appeal has been filed.
During the pendency of the suit, S.Reshma plaintiff and three defendants namely P. Satyananda, Chinnaiah and Parvathamma expired.
1, instead of filing an appeal against the order of refusal to implead him as a party, preferred a first appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. before the High Court challenging the companypromise decree passed by the trial companyrt on 30.9.2004.
2 companyld number have been set aside only on the request made by one opposite party when the other opposite party had number made such a request for setting aside the companypromise decree.
S. Jayanth and S.Reshma, son and daughter of appellant had filed a Suit being O.S. No.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Application No.
1 as defendant in Original Suit No.
1 in the appeal before the High Court and number by the appellant S. Ratna respondent No.
Acting on that memo, the High Court by impugned order dated 9.8.2006 set aside the companypromise decree without going into the merits or demerits of the case and remanded the matter to the trial companyrt to proceed with the suit on merits after impleading respondent No.
It is submitted by learned companynsel for the appellant that the appeal filed by the stranger to the proceedings without he being impleaded as a party was number maintainable at all.
8 of 2002 in the Original Suit for impleading him as a party defendant to the proceedings.
The said application was rejected by the trial companyrt by its order dated 3.3.2004.
17567 OF 2006 Leave granted.
Respondent No.
350 of 1993 for partition of the suit property against their father Satyananda and grand parents C.V. Chinnaiah and C.V. Parvathamma.
In pursuance of our order dated 15.1.2008, the appellant has produced before us the Memo of Consent filed before the High Court.
During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.
After the death of S. Reshma plaintiff, her mother S. Ratna was brought on record as legal heir.
1 had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure being Misc.
