Bangalore.
The order reads as under Leave granted.
1 herein, filed an application in the disposed of appeal RSA No.
2 respondent No.
Aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.2 filed appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
Thereafter, defendant No.
1 herein .
18/97 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District.
It, therefore, caused prejudice to the rights of the parties.By judgment decree dated 16.09.1997, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
and while setting aside the order dated 23.07.2002 remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh companysideration in accordance with law including to decide the question of companysideration of the companypromise petition.
Both the sides have filed the companypromise petition.
Subsequently, the parties companypromised the matter and, therefore, the High Court Single Judge by order dated 10.04.2002 disposed of the appeal in terms of companypromise arrived at between the parties.
All the parties are present.
2 in his application dated 23.07.2002 and proceeded to decide the second appeal on merits and by impugned order 02.01.2008 dismissed the second appeal.
The High Court, by order dated 23.07.2002 dismissed the application filed by defendant No.
By judgment dated 02.08.2001, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment decree of the Trial Court.
The appellants plaintiffs filed a civil suit O.S. No.3/90 against the respondents defendants in the Court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge Sr.
This is what the High Court observed 8I do number find any need to adjourn the matter to some other date for cross examination of respondent No.2 who has filed his affidavit purporting to be by way of evidence in support of his application for setting aside the companypromise petition for two reasons.
Division , Bangalore for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.08.1989.
2 C Naga Raju , respondent No.
The appellants plaintiffs felt aggrieved and filed first appeal R.A. No.
When a Second appeal came up for companysideration before the High Court, it disposed of the same in the following terms Mr. Siddappa, learned companynsel files power for respondent No.2.
The respondents companytested the suit.
804/2001 and companyplained therein that the companypromise arrived at between the parties, which resulted in disposal of the second appeal, is number binding on him and prayed for recalling of the order dated 10.04.2002.
The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
By order dated 04.08.2003, this Court allowed the appeals Civil Appeal Nos.
However, the High Court then did number pursue the proceedings in relation to the genuineness of the companypromise and went on to observe that in terms of this Courts order dated 04.8.2003, once the matter is examined on merits, there is numberneed to go into the genuineness of the companypromise petition.
It is against this order of the High Court, the plaintiffs have felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
553132/2003 etc.etc.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.01.2008 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No.804 of 2001 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2018.09.20 appellants herein and affirmed the judgment and 165115 IST Reason decree dated 02.08.2001 passed by the District Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural Dist.,
The appellants pursued the matter further and filed second appeal in the High Court being S.A.No.804/2001.
