Mr. Sunil Kumar vs Mr. L.P Suresh Babu on 6 March, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr. Sunil Kumar vs Mr. L.P Suresh Babu on 6 March, 2020

Bench: John Michael Cunha

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

                              BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.291 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.     Mr. Sunil Kumar,
       S/o. Mahabal Kumar,
       Aged about 39 years,

2.     Mr. Pankaj Kumar,
       S/o. Mahabal Kumar,
       Aged about 37 years,

       Both are residing at No.302/A,
       Shivaranjani Apartments, ITI Layout,
       Bengaluru - 560 085.                   ...Appellants

(By Sri. K.V. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate)

AND:

Mr. L.P. Suresh Babu,
S/o. L. Prakash,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at No.62, ITI Layout,
3rd East Main Road,
Vidyapeeta Extension,
BSK 3rd Stage,
                               -2-


Bengaluru - 560 085.                               ...Respondent

(By Sri. M. Shivaprakash, Adv. for Caveator/respondent)

      This appeal is filed under Order XLI, Rule 1 r/w Section 96
of the CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2018
passed in O.S.No.8407/2016 on the file of the XXII Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for
ejectment.
      This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court
delivered the following:

                        JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent on I.A.No.1/2020.

Appellants and respondent are also present in person.

2. Appellants have sought for extension of time to vacate the premises by six months on the ground that wife of the appellant No.1 is due to deliver a child in March 2020 and the doctor has advised that it would be a caesarian delivery and in the said circumstances and on account of the customs in the family, appellants are unable to vacate the house for a period of six months.

-3-

3. Request is strongly opposed by learned counsel for respondent contending that on one pretext or the other, delivery of the vacant premises has been delayed and father of the respondent is in advance age and he requires to spend his last days in the suit premises and further, the learned counsel has also pointed out that the request for extension of six months is unreasonable and therefore, cannot be accepted. However, at the persuasion of the learned counsel for respondent, respondent has agreed to give an extension of three months to the appellant to vacate the premises.

4. Submission of learned counsel for both the parties is placed on record.

5. In terms of the concession given by the respondent, appellants shall deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondent positively by 31st May, 2020. For the last month of May 2020, the appellant shall be liable to pay Rs.20,000/- by way of mesne profits.

-4-

6. Appellants shall file an affidavit before this Court undertaking to vacate the premises positively by 31.05.2020 without driving the respondent for execution or for further litigation.

7. Accordingly, appellant No.1 has sworn to an affidavit undertaking to vacate the schedule premises by 31.05.2020 without driving the respondent to further litigation.

8. Affidavit is placed on record. Ordered accordingly. Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and affidavit filed by appellant No.1 dated 06.03.2020.

As the matter is compromised, appellants are entitled for refund of the court fee in terms of Section 66 of the Court Fees Act.

Sd/-

JUDGE SV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court