- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2554 MFA No. 201049 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201049 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MALLAPPA S/O YAMANAPPA MAILESUAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, SHIVAMMA W/O MALLAPPA MAILESURER, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. MADANAPPA S/O MALLAPPA MAILESURER, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. BASAMMA D/O MALLAPPA MAILESURER, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 4. DEVAMMA D/O MALLAPPA MAILESURER, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. NINGAPPA S/O MALLAPPA MAILESURER, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O GUDADANAL VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASAGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 115. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGESH S/O HANUMANTA MUNDARAGER, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2554 MFA No. 201049 of 2025 R/O SHAVANTAGAL VILLAGE, TQ. DEVADURGA, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129. 2. MAHADEVAMMA W/O RAMANNA @ RAMALINGAPPA MAILESUR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O GUDADANAL VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASAGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 115. 3. SHIVAPUTRA S/O KANAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O GUDADANAL VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASAGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 115. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.7 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC IN OS NO. 69/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, LINGASUGUR, THE COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-F AND TO PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that the suit between the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was settled and was disposed of by way of a compromise petition. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 herein filed an application before the trial Court contending that the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2554 MFA No. 201049 of 2025 compromise between the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not sustainable and he had sought a stay of the execution of the compromise petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the remedy for a third party is by way of filing a separate suit if he has any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. He being not a party to the compromise petition and not a party to the suit, cannot appear before the Court subsequent to disposal of the suit and file an application for stay of execution of the compromise decree. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order may be stayed. 2. It is to be noted that the suit is for declaration and injunction and by virtue of the compromise decree, a few of the properties are declared to be of the ownership of the appellant and a few others are of the ownership of the respondent No.1 and 2. 3. Now, the appellant herein contend that without issuing a notice to him or the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court has passed an interim order under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 by staying the compromise decree. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2554 MFA No. 201049 of 2025 4. Obviously, when a suit had been disposed of by virtue of a compromise petition, the trial Court had become functus officio. The remedy for a third party was elsewhere, if he has any right in the property. Therefore, keeping open the liberty to the appellant herein to urge his grounds before the trial Court by virtue of filing an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of. 5. It is to be noted that, the compromise decree is binding only between the appellant herein and the respondent No.1 and 2 and any of the transactions made by them would not be binding on the impelading applicant before the trial Court. 6. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of by following: ORDER The appellant herein is at liberty to approach the trial Court and bring to its notice that it had become functus officio in respect of the suit where the third party applicant was not a party to it. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2554 MFA No. 201049 of 2025 Even after such application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, the trial Court maintains an order of the kind impugned herein, the appellant is at liberty to approach this Court afresh. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: AK