M/S Sanjeevini Health Care vs. M/S.Vijayalakshmi And Associates

Held

The Court held that the parties had amicably settled their disputes outside the court and had filed a Joint Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The Court interacted with the parties and their counsels, who unequivocally submitted that they had entered into the compromise out of their own free will, without any force, coercion, or undue influence. Being satisfied with this, the Court proceeded to pass a consent decree in terms of the compromise. The compromise terms included the appellants quitting and delivering vacant physical possession of the demised premises to the respondent by 31.10.2027, with an option for a one-month grace period. Specific pre-handover obligations were detailed, along with provisions for liquidated damages in case of delayed handover. Adjustments to the security deposit and monthly rent, inclusive of GST, were also agreed upon. The parties agreed to withdraw their respective suits upon the passing of the decree. The Court directed that a consent decree be drawn in these terms and disposed of the commercial appeal accordingly.

Facts

The appellants, M/s Sanjeevini Health Care and M/s Brookfield Hospital, filed a commercial appeal against an order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Com.O.S.No.1361/2025. The appeal challenged the dismissal of applications IA No. 2 and 5 filed by the appellants. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. They filed a Joint Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking a consent decree. The appellants were represented by Dr. Pradeep Kumar T.J., and the respondent, M/s. Vijayalakshmi and Associates, was represented by its partner, Mr. M. Prathap Reddy. Both parties confirmed their voluntary agreement to the compromise terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the court and are entitled to a consent decree in terms of their compromise petition? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellants contended that they have amicably resolved their disputes with the respondent through the intervention of well-wishers and have arrived at specific terms of compromise. They submitted a Joint Compromise Petition outlining these terms, including the handover of premises, pre-handover obligations, grace period, liquidated damages, security deposit adjustments, and rent payments inclusive of GST. They sought a consent decree to formalize this settlement. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state. The focus was on the parties' mutual agreement and the terms of their compromise.