Prahalad Srinivas Devale v. The Model Education Board

15. Srinivas Venkatesh Madhwarayannavar Aged about 49 years, 0cc: Service R/o: Navalgund - 582 208 District Dharwad. SRI.KRISHNA (BY RESPONDENT NO.2, ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT NO.3, 4, 6, DELETED) S. 7, RESPONDENTS DIXIT, FOR ADVOCATE SRI.JAYAKJJMAR S.PATIL 9, FOR RESPONDENT 5 AND 11, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 & 15 ARE RFA FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2003 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, DHARWAD. This Appeal coming on for orders, this day, the Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of a judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.1/2001 on 20/12/2003 by the Principal District Judge, Dharwad. The first appellant was plaintiff No.10 and third appellant was plaintiff No.8 in the aforesaid suit. Appellant Nos.2 and 4 are deleted since they are no more. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was a representative suit. Some of the respondents were the defendants in the said suit and other respondents were the plaintiffs. The court below by the impugned judgement and decree has framed a scheme known as “Scheme for Management of Model Education Board”.

2. During the pendency of this appeal, parties contended they had amicably settled the matter and a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC came to be filed reporting terms of the compromise which read as under: “COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF CPC, 1908 The appellants and the respondents in the above case on the advice of the well wishers and elders of community at large have amicably settled the lis in terms of the following. Therefore, together they pray for the disposal of the above appeal by a judgment and decree incorporating the terms of the compromise as set out in the scheme at Annexure ‘A’ and also the list of the Members of the Board Annexure ‘B’ annexed hereto. Further, it is prayed that in view of the said compromise, the Administrator appointed by this Hon’ble Court vide ad interim order dated

18.3.2005 for the interim management of the affairs of the let respondent Board may be vacated with a direction to the said Administrator to handover the charge immediately to the Chairman of the Managing Committee, in the Interest of Justice”.

3. The compromise petition was enclosed with Annexure-A a new scheme for Management for Model Education Board, Navalgund Taluk, Dharwad District and Annexure-E consisted of the list of members of the board. The said compromise petition was filed on 29/1/2008.

4. Pursuant to the said compromise petition ified, this court by Judgment dated 20/2/2008 recorded the same and disposed of the appeal accordingly. Thereafter, I.A.No. 1/08 was filed to recall the judgment dated 20/2/2008. This Court having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties by order dated 19/1/2009 recalled the order dated 20/2/2008 and allowed LA.No.1/08.

5. Again parties to the appeal filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C on 11/8/2010 reporting the terms of compromise stating that parties have amicably settled the matter and terms of the compromise scheme for Management was set out in Annexure-A to the said compromise petition whereunder the Model Education Board, Navalgund, Dharwad District came to be agreed between parties. To the said compromise petition list of members of the board as per Anneuxre-B was also enclosed. Said compromise petition reads as under: “The appellants and the Respondent in the above case on the advice of the well-wishers and elders of ithe community at large have amicably settled the us following: Therefore, together they pray for the disposal of the above appeal by a judgment and decree compromise as set out in the scheme at Annexure-A and also the list of the members of the Board. in terms of incorporating Further, Annexure-B annexed hereto. prayed that in view of the said compromise, the Administrator appointed by this Hon’ble Court vide ad interim Order dated 18-3-2005 for the interim management of the affairs of the 1st respondent Board may be vacated with a direction to the said Administrator to hand over the charge immediately to the chairman of the Management Committee, in the interest of justice.’ For considering this compromise petition this Court ordered by order dated 15.12.2010 publication of the said compromise petition in newspapers calling upon the interested persons to file objections if any, considering the fact that this was a scheme suit. Accordingly, compromise petition came to be published in Vijay Karnataka newspaper dated 12/1/2011. The said paper publication has been filed along with the memo dated 24/1/2011 in the registry and same also came to be accepted by this Court by order dated 17/2/2011. In response to the said publication an impleading application came to be filed by one Sri.Shankar Gouda, Sb Veeranna of Navalgund in Misc. Civil. No.102052/2011 and said application came to be allowed by this Court by order dated 17/2/2011. Hence said applicant has come on record as respondent No.16.

6. Today a joint memo is filed which is signed by advocate for appellants and advocate for respondents 2, 5, 7, 9 and 11 who had ified compromise petition dated 25/6/20 10 (flied on 11/8/2010) and respondent No.16. In the memo med today by respondent No.16, it is agreed to by him that in view of his inclusion In the list of members of the board of the first respondent trust he has no objection to record the compromise. In the said memo respondent No.16 has also given his consent for recording compromise petition filed on 11/8/2010. Though respondent No.16 is not present learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.16 who has also signed memo and identified the signature of respondent No.16 would reiterate the contents of the memo filed by respondent No.16. These two memos are also placed on record. Today the respondents 5 and 11 are also present before the Court. Learned advocates appearing for the parties would submit that a woman member will also be included in the list of members of the aforesaid board subject to qualification prescribed in Annexure-A. The submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the parties is placed on record.

7. List of board of members which was consisting 20 persons have now been substituted by the st of members 10 of the board filed along with joint memo today and it is agreed between parties that the said list of board of members shall form part and parcel of the original compromise petition filed before this Court on 11/8/2010.

8. It is not in dispute that an Administrator appointed by this Court is in charge of the affairs of the institution run by the trust in question. Administrator is directed to hold elections to elect the Chairman of the trust in question by issuing 7 days notice forthwith and shall hand over the charge of the affairs of the institution run by the trust to the Chairman elected from amongst members of the board (whose names are reflected in Annexure-B to compromise petition). The process of conducting election to elect the Chairman of the trust and consequent handing over of the charge sheet shall be completed by the Administrator on or before 10/3/2011.

9. It is evident that all the parties have signed the aforesaid application. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the compromise entered into between the parties is lawful. Consequently, appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid application. 11 The judgment and decree impugned herein accordingly stands modified. No order as to costs, Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly. Sd! JUDGE Vmb I