- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:341 MFA No. 4209 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4209 OF 2016 (CPC) BETWEEN: MISS. S. HAMSAVENI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, D/O LATE T. SHANKAR, R/AT U-12(3), CHINNAPPA LANE, MARIYAPPA ROAD, 9TH MAIN ROAD, OLD KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE - 560 023, KARNATAKA. (NOTE: SINCE THE APPELLANT IS MAJOR, SHE IS NO MORE REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AS SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITTLE OF THE TRIAL COURT). …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVA PRASAD E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S. BHARATH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O LATE T. SHANKAR, R/AT U-12(3), CHINNAPPA LANE, MARIYAPPA PALYA, 9TH MAIN ROAD, OLD KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE - 560 023, KARNATAKA. SRI.SRINIVAS, Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:341 MFA No. 4209 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE.V.THANGAVELU, KEELKALPATTADAI VILLAGE, PALLIPATTU POST AND TALUK, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT NO.01 TO O6 HEREIN. 2. SMT.ARANJI @ ANNANDI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O LATE T.SHANKAR, OCC:SERVICE, #3/1,(NEW NO.01), MARIYAPPAPALYA, 9TH MAIN ROAD, OLD KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE - 560 023, KARNATAKA. 3. SMT.S.SUNANDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, D/O LATE T.SHANKAR, OCC:TEACHER, METTU THERUVU, KEELANDUR, TIRUTTANI TALUK, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. 4. SMT.V.T.VISHALAKSHI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/O LATE V.THANGAVELU, OCC:HOUSE WIFE, R/O NO.161, 5TH CROSS, NETHAJINAGAR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:341 MFA No. 4209 of 2016 KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU - 560 023. 5. SRI. T.MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE V.THANGAVELU, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KEELKALPATTADAI VILLAGE, VELIGARAM GROUP, PALLIPATTU TALUK, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. 6. SRI. T.RAVI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE V. THANGAVELU, OCC:BOOK BINDER, R/O NO.161, 5TH CROSS, NETHAJINAGAR, KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU - 560 023. 7. SRI. ARMUGAM AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE GOVINDA REDDY, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KEELKALPATTADAI VILLAGE, VELIGARAM GROUP, PALLIPATTU TALUK, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.G.PHADKE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 TO R6; SRI.RAMACHANDRA R NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.G.A. VISWANATHA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R7: R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1-A(2) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2015 PASSED ON FDP NO.86/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:341 MFA No. 4209 of 2016 & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.7), ALLOWING THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED U/O.23 RULE 3 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC AND SUBMITTING FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS BY PASSING NECESSARY ORDERS ON THE COMPROMISE PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal reserving liberty to file appropriate application for recalling the impugned compromise decree dated 05.10.2015 passed in FDP No.86/2015 before XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.7). 2. Learned counsel for respondent is present before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision dated 12.12.2024 rendered in Civil Appeal No.14328/2024 SLP (Civil) by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Navaratan Lal Sharma vs. Radha Mohan Sharma & Others, wherein it is categorically held - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:341 MFA No. 4209 of 2016 that no appeal is maintainable and the parties shall approach the same Court for restoration of the case. 4. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case cited supra, the memo filed by the learned counsel for appellant is hereby accepted and the appellant is permitted to withdraw this appeal with a liberty to file appropriate application for recalling the compromise decree before the Trial Court. Further, the time spent by the appellant before this Court would entitle the appellant to the benefit of Section 12 and 13 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. With the above said observations, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the interim order shall remain in force until disposal of any application filed before the Trial Court. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26