ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard learned counsel Sri.P.Chinnappa on behalf of petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Narendra Kumar Jain who is the petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2 is physically present before this Court identified by his counsel. 2. Learned counsel Sri.Arun.K.S for caveator/respondent No.3 along with respondent No.3 namely Mr.Louis James is present. 3. Learned counsel Sri.K.G.Kamath is present through video conferencing along with respondent No.4/defendant No.4 namely Mrs.Margaret Pinto who is physically present before this Court. 4. Learned counsel Sri.Rakshith Kumar for respondent No.5 is present. 5. Notice to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed and memo to that effect is accepted as they are formal parties before the trial Court. 6. These petitions are filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 23.08.2025 passed in O.S.No.1274/2016 by the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Bengaluru whereby the trial Court rejected to accept the compromise petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs as well as the defendant Nos.4 and 5. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court, the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed independent compromise petitions by incorporating the terms and conditions in the compromise petitions, which came to be filed on 24.04.2025. 8. The compromise petitions came to be rejected only on the ground that respondent No.3/defendant No.3 had not agreed to the compromise and did not concede the compromise, so also he was not a signatory to the compromise petitions. The trial Court orders emanate from paragraph Nos.24 and 26 the reasoning for which the compromise petition was rejected. Therefore, what would be relevant here at this stage is that the defendant No.3 who had objected to the compromise petition executed and arrived at by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 and 5 had not agreed to the compromise petitions. Except for defendant No.3, the others had participated, and in view of the non-participation of defendant No. 3 before the trial Court in the compromise petition, the compromise petition came to be rejected. 9. During the course of arguments in this petition, defendant No.3/respondent No.3 namely Mr.Louis James is represented through his counsel Sri Arun.K.S and filed an affidavit today. The affidavit reads as under: "1. 9. During the course of arguments in this petition, defendant No.3/respondent No.3 namely Mr.Louis James is represented through his counsel Sri Arun.K.S and filed an affidavit today. The affidavit reads as under: "1. I state that I am the Respondent No.3 in this Writ Petition and I am aware of the facts of this case. Hence, I am competent to depose to the contents of this Affidavit. 2. I state that I am aware that the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the Respondent / Defendant No.4 have amicably arrived at a settlement, the terms of which have been recorded in the Compromise Petition dated 24.04.2025 submitted before the Hon'ble Trial Court. 3. I hereby consent (and confirms no objection) for the aforesaid Compromise Petition to be allowed, a Compromise Decree to be drawn up in terms thereof and the concerned suit O.S.No.1274/2016 between those said parties being disposed of accordingly. As a natural corollary, I also hereby consent (and confirms no objection) for the above Writ Petition to be allowed as prayed for. 4. I unconditionally and irrevocably abandon, forego, release, relinquish, and waive any and all claims, demands, interests, and rights against Late Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain and the Petitioners /Plaintiffs and their assets and properties (including but not limited to those finding mention in the records of the concerned suit O. S. No. 1274/2016). I also unconditionally and irrevocably withdraw, recants, and rescinds any and all allegations, accusations, averments, assertions, claims and contentions against the Late Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain and the Plaintiffs (including but not limited to those finding mention in any pleadings or submissions put forth by the Respondent/ Defendant No. 3 before any court of law or authorities). 5. I and the Petitioners/Plaintiffs have amicably arrived at a separate settlement, the terms of which have been recorded in the Compromise Petition dated 19.11.2025 submitted before the Hon'ble Trial Court. I have no surviving claims and / or disputes against the Petitioners/Plaintiffs. 6. I state that this Affidavit is being filed voluntarily, without any threat, coercion, or undue Influence, mainly to place on record the Respondent/Defendant No. 3's no-objection and consent regarding the compromise between the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the Respondent/Defendant No. 4." 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/defendant No. 3 is present along with the party, namely Mr. 6. I state that this Affidavit is being filed voluntarily, without any threat, coercion, or undue Influence, mainly to place on record the Respondent/Defendant No. 3's no-objection and consent regarding the compromise between the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the Respondent/Defendant No. 4." 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/defendant No. 3 is present along with the party, namely Mr. Louis James who is present before the Court physically and he answers that he has voluntarily signed his affidavit which is presented today. He is agreeable to the execution of the compromise petition. Accordingly, he would not have any objection to the compromise petition being accepted in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of the matter, the short point for consideration before this Court would be that the respondent No.3/defendant No.3, who has appeared before this Court physically through his counsel, identified by his counsel, has agreed to the compromise petition executed by him before the trial Court and has no objection in the trial Court accepting the same. 11. In the view of the respondent No. 3/defendant No. 3 having filed a separate compromise petition along with the plaintiffs before the trial Court, subsequent to the impugned order, the same would have to be accepted by the trial Court on it being satisfied, in accordance to law. 12. The respondent No.3/defendant No. 3 is physically present before the Court. He does not have any objection. However, if the parties are not before the Court, they may be permitted to appear through Video Conference or through any authorized persons; the trial court may accept the same and dispose of the compromise petitions in accordance with law, as the respondent No.3/defendant No.3 does not have any objection to the petitions being disposed of in accordance with the compromise petitions already filed before the trial Court. 13. In view of the trial Court having rejected the compromise petitions executed by plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 and 5 for the reason of defendant No.3 having not participated, the order would have to be set aside and the matter would have to be remanded back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the compromise petitions in accordance with law afresh by accepting the affidavit and the compromise petition executed by the petitioners/plaintiffs with respondent No.3/defendant No.3, and other defendants. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER Petitions are allowed. 2. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER Petitions are allowed. 2. The impugned order dated 23.08.2025 passed in OS No. 1274/2016 by the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. 3. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the compromise petitions dated 24.04.2025 and the other compromise petition filed by respondent No.3/defendant No.3 before the trial Court in accordance with law. 4. Parties are directed to be present before the trial Court on 27.11.2025 for further proceedings. 5. Ordered accordingly.