- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17277 RSA No. 577 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2025 (POS) BETWEEN: SRI REGINOLD SERRAO S/O LATE, MARK SERRAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O MARCO MESS, VIJAYAPURA MAIN ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY- 577101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.A.P. MANJULA PRASAD W/O LATE, B.S.PRASAD AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O VIJAYAPURA MAIN ROAD, NEAR MARCO MESS, CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY- 577101 …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.298/2019 BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT GIVEN BY ITS ON ALL ISSUES THERETO AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT WITH COSTS AND ETC; Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17277 RSA No. 577 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the compromise decree passed in R.A.No.25/2023 dated 20.02.2024 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru. 2. The office has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal in view of Section 100 of CPC, (since the appeal may be allowed, a decree may be drawn, considering the terms and conditions in the compromise petition). The appellant has challenged the compromise decree passed by the First Appellate Court by filing a second appeal. No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the court with the consent of the parties. 3. If the appellant aggrieved by the compromise decree, has to approach the same Court under the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, the said view is supported by - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17277 RSA No. 577 of 2025 the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PUSHPA DEVI BHAGAT (D) TH.LR. VS. RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS, REPORTED IN (2006) 5 SCC 566. Hon’ble Apex Court held that “A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the Court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under the proviso to Rule 3 Order 23”. Suppose, the party breaches the compromise decree passed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. In that case the affected party shall apply for the revival of the original proceedings, allowing the matter to be decided on its merits. The said view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NAVRATANLAL SHARMA VS. RADHA MOHAN SHARMA AND OTHERS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.14328/2024 AT SLP(CIVIL) NO.27723/2024 disposed of on 12.12.2024. Further, if a compromise decree is passed, no appeal shall lie from the decree passed by the Court with the party’s consent. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17277 RSA No. 577 of 2025 4. Admittedly, a decree was passed with the party’s consent. The office has rightly raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable. Hence, office objection is upheld. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 6. The office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgments after retaining the photocopy of the same and directed to refund the Court fee. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS