Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vijayakumar vs Sri. Someshwaraswamy on 8 July, 2016
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
C.R.P.NO.264/2016
BETWEEN
Sri.Vijayakumar,
Son of late Shamanna,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.47,
Gubbithotadappa Road,
T.C.Royan Road,
Cottonpet,
Bangalore 560 053. ... Petitioner
(By Sri.N.J.Ramesh, Advocate)
AND:
Sri Someshwaraswamy
Veerashaiva Samaja Seva Sangha (R)
No.60, Cottonpet Main Road,
Bangalore 560 053,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Sri B.Subramani. ... Respondent
(By Sri.G.V.Dayananda, Advocate)
This CRP is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka
Small Causes Courts Act, against the order dated 29.6.2016
passed in Ex.No.518/2016 on the file of the XIX Additional
SCJ, Bengaluru, dismissing the IA filed under Section 151 of
CPC.
This CRP coming on for Admission this day, the Court
made the following:
-2-
ORDER
The judgment debtor in Ex.No.518/2016 on the file of XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore (SCCH17), has come up in this revision petition impugning the order dated 29.6.2016 passed on an unnumbered interlocutory application filed under Section 151 of CPC by the judgment debtor.
2. The material on record would disclose that the respondent - Sangha has filed a petition for eviction in SC.No.897/2012 on the file of Small Causes Court, Bangalore, seeking eviction of the revision petitioner. The said eviction petition came to be decreed by judgment dated 13.7.2015, which was subject matter of revision petition in C.R.P.No.400/2015 on the file of this Court, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 8.9.2015 has dismissed the said revision petition. While dismissing the Revision Petition, time granted for vacating the tenanted property is extended by another six months.
3. Thereafter, execution petition was levied for taking possession of the suit property in Ex.No.518/2016 by the decree holder in SC.No.897/2012, in which an application is -3- filed by the judgment debtor in trying to establish that possession of the property, which is sought to be taken is different from the property in SC.No.897/2012. In that behalf, an attempt is also made to show as if by virtue of decree passed in SC.No.897/2012, some other property that is totally unconnected is sought to be executed. The executing Court after giving careful consideration to the defence raised by the judgment debtor has dismissed the said application by order dated 29.6.2016, which is the subject of this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the order impugned. On going through the same with reference to earlier proceedings in SC.No.897/2012 as well as C.R.P.No.400/2015, it is seen that the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in CRP.No.400/2015 has reached finality, in the same not being subject matter of challenge in an appeal before the Apex Court. Hence, question of Defendant/tenant in SC.No.897/2012 taking a different line of defence in Ex.No.518/2016 does not arise. Nodoubt, though the defendants in any proceedings are entitled to take inconsistent stand, but that inconsistent stand if it is taken even at the execution stage, then there would be no quietus to -4- any litigation. Therefore, this Court feel that absolutely no grounds are made out to consider admission of this revision petition filed impugning the order dated 29.6.2016 passed in Ex.No.518/2016. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of revision petition, IA.I/2016 filed seeking stay is disposed of as having become infructuous.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-