Mir Saifulla vs The Stateof Karnataka on 16 July, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mir Saifulla vs The Stateof Karnataka on 16 July, 2009

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THES THE 16th was 01? JULY 2oe9 %'j 
BEFORE "Vk°'

THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE AJIT   

WRIT PETITION No.1832O  

BETWEEN:

Mir Saifulia,

S/0 Late Sri Mir Fathauﬂa, 

Aged about 64 years,     _4 V 
R/a No.10/6, A.R.Resid%:I;cy,   "
V Cress, 831 Main, Bymsandra; 
I1IB1<><:k, Jayarpagar East,  "  1 .V "
Bangalore~5E;'(}"i33€}I'1.  2:  " '  _ I ...PETI'}'I{)NER

(Sri 
AND: j 1

1. The state 9:' 
.ﬁ§:p.&rw1ent 2:21' V Heme,
"R&13\..Tpj,*'"~:¥;s Sec1*_'éta'" ry,

A .;Ba:1§ga1c:r<:~~.§6O 00 1.

2. 'E3r11ha4:_ Barlgalore Niahanagam Paiike,
Curparatien Oﬁicm, N.R.Square,
TBar:gé1I0re~56O G02,

' Lizlicfp. by its Commissionsr,

, Sri S.K..Umesh,

S /' 0 Kariyappa,

Major, Inspector of 1305.06,
Formcriy working at
Tiiaknagar Poiice Statian,
Fzesently w<:.~rk1'11g as
Inspectomf Felice in COB,



in')

At J.P.Nagar Poiice Statian,
Bangaiara.

. Sri Mahim,

S/0 {ate Dastagir, '
Major,

R/a No.37, 3"' Cross,
Someshwaranagar,
1" Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 03.1.

. Sri Nceruﬁa Khan,

S/0 C.s.Lateef I{}:1€:*.I'1,,_

Major, r/a No. 14,  "
La1baghRoad, -.  A
Banga10re--56{) 0:27.."  -- if

. Sri  " "

S/0    :  
Majer,Rfa.NG;{%7,   ' 
4mLcmss,La:baghRoad,  
Barégaiore-5t3f)'~£)2'?, *-__ " %

. Sri   " 

syn Abdul'-.F§iasG01VSa,b,

 1?./a  1st Floor,
V «.,_Sha:11&;hiRQad, Shantlninagar,
 iiﬁarsgaldre;-'56O O27.

 ;   Registrar,

"City-.fCi'i.*i1 Caurt,
Maycstﬁall Unit,

 AA .-Ba.n;ga1ore.

;.  Mﬁevindappa,
E S/0 Muniyzappa,

Major, Bailiff, City Civi} Caurt,
Mayo ha1iU§1it,
Bangalore.

143. Sri K.C3:1ikkavaradiah,

S / 0 Kuilegcywda,



Major, Bailiff, City Civil Cauri,
Maycrhaﬁ Unit,

1}. Sri Khalee},
Fat11<~::r's name not kmawn to
the petitianer,
Aged about 35 years,
R/a No.8 [New No.26),
84/ 4, near '.22 Bus. Stop,
1031 Cross, LIC Coiony, _
Sm Main, Byrasandra,  
Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 O_}"i,_ 

12. The Sup6I'§11'CCI}d{3ﬂt O_f Poliice,   AA  
Cenﬁal Bureau of Investigatibfg  " V  '
(DEE Cross, Beliary Read,  '  1  
Banga19re--;'_L*6€}gQZ.'34.  2;    ;;.;'iZE}S PONDEN'E'S

(Sri Nalendia  I-{€3(3 §' 'f~:>1.'=R§§, 'R8 and R12)

This SV-.1? '1:-':+,I«'3l_¢'d Iméer Articies 226 and 227 of the
Constitution. of .Indi:a 'Tprayi:1g to direct the respondent
N0.12-CBI'=-toV%¥:hOr01ig,}11y""inv€stigate the matter against
the resp0I1d'e3:1ts  1: id" 10, the joint preparaiion in
s:1cc'e;%$sf1:}.iy V'<:<)rI1p1et'i:1g of criminal coﬂspiracy

A' 'enviﬁeigedw. under S§3"C'iit)r1 120-«A of Indian Pc~::I1al Code by
"V__t1r'1:{~:'« .. _rc:ssvpo:1{1 ez11;s jointly and severally and after
submissicn E'-i'~€.hj<: repori, ccmsider the p1mi$hment to be

awarded 't'<§."_'i:h€:;S'aid R1 ta 10 under Section 120»~B of the

  Indiggz Pen-3}'j'.{}0de.

Thiéf' WP coming on for prelhninaxy hearing this

  j<;iaA_Ay;Lt2;1c Ceurt made the foﬂowing:

O R D E R

The petitiener Claims to be the absclutcz owner of the residentiai bui1c:iiI1g censtructeé on site No.8, / / situated in survey N034/4, Corporation. No.28, 101*? M Cross, LEC Coiony, near 22 Bus Stop, 8th Mglin, Byrasandra, 3"! Block, J eyanagaf _ 4* V. Bangalore. He claims that he is V' "

enjoyment of the same along He claims that he has to' that he is in possession, ID ' Card, Ration Card, Water connection, Voters' the fourth respondent, hoider, ﬂied a suit 11} 'respondents 5-7 for enforce:tt1e n'_tA " According to the petitioeert Léthte ' " of the said suit was a house 'veituete '953 Cross, Jayanagar (East). The said Vse.itt"ended .__a compromise. The fourth respondent who I 'tiijider ﬁled execution No. 15169/()2 against _ tI1e'j'--2.1dgei1ee}: debtors i.e., respondents 5 to 7. In the pbbeeedirzgs, the petitioner herein makes an taggpzjeaeoa under €)n::1er 2 1 Rule 99 of Code of Civil t Pfeeedtxre. The said application was heard and : eventually the execution Court directed deiivery of I /5."

possession. The claim of the petitioner is that in the ﬂ

4. Even otherwise, it is to be noticed t1}dt:4:"'the matter is of a civi}. nature, izmemueh _ execution proceedings, the petitioner _- izati:fiied'-- " = 'V application under Order 21 Role 99- e. inf' o:*eom.:ii' Procedure and as agai11stV_'i:h.e order execution proceedings "V«1'1t-idVAVVVifﬂe(i 3. revision petition. petition was dismissed on The appeal in RFA No.2529f'0("3:A: R2210 is not in a positioeto ixrhetlier the appeai is stiil pending or"-«eonoiiuciedi that as it may, if the decree respoziderzt has taken possession of the ﬁoose to the petitiorzer, his remedy would be to ,eeekV.;§oe§;ession of the property iii}. an appropriate "~-.,fom1:<1;' eiid certainly not by way of a writ petition. A' Eetiee, I am of the View that the questien of ganting the _»vreé:1ief sought for by the petitioner does not arise. Petition stands rejected. It is epen for the petitioner to have his gievanees redreseed elsewhere.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court