K. VENKATACHALA BHAT AND ANR. versus KRISHNA NAYAK (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 09-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

""' 
\ 
K. VENKA TA CHA LA BHAT AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
KRISHNA NAY AK (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
MARCH 9, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908 : 
Order I 3, Rule 3-Compromise of suit-Writ petition before High Court-
Disposed of in terms of memo of purported compromise and affidavit signed C 
only by respondents and not by appellants-Held, requirement under Order 
I 3, r.3 can be pressed into service even in writ proceedings-Compromise not 
signed by parties cannot be recorded by the Court-Constitution of India, 
1950-Article 226. 
Condonation of delay : 
D 
Writ appeal agair.st disposal of writ petition on the basis of purported 
compromise signed only by respondents-Filed with application for 
condonation of 1440 days delay-Refusal by Division Bench to condone the 
delay-Held, High Court proceeded on entirely erroneous premises-When E 
writ petition was disposed of in an indefensible manner by single Judge, 
Division Bench should have condoned the delay-Matter remanded to single 
Judge for disposal of writ petition on merits. 
Appellants filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High 
Court challenging the order of the single Judge in a writ petition, with a prayer F 
to condone the delay of 1440 days in filing the appeal. The writ petition was 
disposed of by the single Judge of the High Court on the basis of a purported 
compromise memo signed by respondents 2(a) and 2(b). It was specifically 
pleaded by the appellants that they never signed the so-called compromise 
memo, and came to know of the disposal of the writ petition only when the 
respondents 2(a) and 2(b) tried to get the khata changed in their names on 'G 
the basis of the sai~ purported compromise memo. The Division Bench of the 
High Court refused to condone the delay as having not sufficiently been 
explained. 
623 
H 
A 
B 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
In the present appeal, it was contended for the appellants that the single 
Judge sJtould not have disposed of the w_rit petition on the basis of the so called 
compromise memo which was signed only by respondento; 2(a) and 2(b) and 
not by the appellants; and that the disposal of appeal by the Division Bench 
of the High Court was on entirely erroneous premises. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court proceeded on entirely erroneous premises. 
If it wanted to dispose of a part of the dispute on the basis of a settlement 
purportedly arrived at between the parties, the memo and affidavit should 
C have been filed by the parties concerned. On a perusal of the so called 
compromise memo it is noticed that the same was signed by respondents 2(a) 
and 2(b) before the Notary. Acting on the basis of memo or affidavit which · 
was signe~ by the respondents only the dispute could not have been settled 
against the appellants without their consent. [625-E; 626-C-H] 
D 
1.2. The order passed by the_ Single Judge is unsustainable. When the 
E 
F 
G 
writ petition was disposed of in an indefensible manner by Single Judge, in 
view olt the reasons indicated by the appellants, the Division Bench should 
have condoned the delay even if it was substantial. It did not even advert to,. 
the staQd of the appellants. The matter is remanded to the Single Judge of 
the High Court for disposal on merits of the case. (625-D-F] 
2. Though in terms of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 
the expression 'proceedings' is not applicable to proceeding under Article 226 
of the Constitution of India, the requirement under Order XXIII Rule 3 can 
be pressed into service even in writ proceedings. (627-C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1604 of2005. 
From the judgment and Order dated 2.1.2003 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A. No. 4933 of 2002 (KLRA). 
Basav.a Prabhu S. Patil, B. Subramanya Prasad, S.K. Dubey and A.S. 
Bhasme for the Respondents. 
Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leav,e granted. 
-
" 
~ 
c 
-' . ' 
. r 
-( 
K.V. BHATv. KRISHNA NAY AK [PASAYAT. J.] 
625 
J. 
By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the Karnataka High A 
Court refused to condone the delay of 1440 days in filing the writ appeal. 
The writ petition no. 28336of1997 was disposed of by order dated 4.9.1998 
by a learned Single Judge of the High Court which was the subject matter of 
challenge in the Writ Appeal. 
Stand of the appellants before the Division Bench of High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.