Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Karnataka High Court has held that it is perfectly lawful for the Courts to record the compromise on the basis of the compromise petitions duly signed by the parties and tendered by their respective Advocates before the Court, even without procuring the private presence of the parties.
Apart from this it was also held that conduct of the proceedings of the petitions _led under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, for divorce by mutual consent can be conducted via videoconference.
The court further laid down a procedure which can be followed for acceptance of sureties in compliance with the condition in the orders of the Criminal Courts. A division bench of judge Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty passed the order while hearing a suo-motu petition haunted to deal with various legal and technical issues that would arise during the partial functioning of courts which commenced from June 1.
In regards to Physical presence of the parties to a suit or proceedings in the civil court is mandatory, when the Court records compromise in accordance with the Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
Amicus Curiae appointed by the court Senior Advocate Uday Holla, relying on three judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Byram Pestonji Gariwala –vs-Union Bank of India and others, Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR Sadhana Rai – vs Rajinder Singh and others and Deputy General Manager –vs- Kamappa to point out that "an Advocate appearing for a party is fully competent to place his signature on the terms of any compromise on behalf of his client.
The bench said "The conclusion which may be drawn from the aforesaid discussion is that the Advocates representing the parties have authority to sign the compromise petition on behalf of their clients and when the compromise petition is signed by the Advocates representing a parties to the suit, it complies with the statutory requirement within the provision of Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the said Code which needs a compromise petition to be signed by the parties.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824