Karnataka High Court
M/S Mehta Engg. Company And Ors vs Shantilal S/O Kanayalal Surana on 24 November, 2015
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.7122/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S. MEHTA ENGG. COMPANY
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM BY ITS PARTNERS
1. AMOL S/O VIJAYKUMAR MEHTA
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O S.S. ROAD, BIJAPUR - 586 101
2. ANUPA W/O AMOL MEHTA
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O S.S. ROAD, BIJAPUR - 586 101
3. SACHIN S/O AMOL MEHTA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O S.S. ROAD, BIJAPUR - 586 101
4. AMIT S/O AMOL MEHTA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O S.S. ROAD, BIJAPUR - 586 101
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
SHANTILAL S/O KANAYALAL SURANA
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O MARWAD GALLI
BAGALKOT - 587 101
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAKASH R. KULKARNI, ADV.)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAISNT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.03.2013
PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AT BIJAPUR. WHEREIN, THE APPEAL WAS
DISMISSED AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
11.08.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.468/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AT BIJAPUR WAS CONFIRMED.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
O.S.No.468/2007 filed by the respondent against the appellants to pass a decree of ejectment and deliver possession of the suit premises was decreed on 11.08.2011 by the Principal Civil Judge at Bijapur. R.A.No.35/2011 filed by the defendant was dismissed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge at Bijapur by a judgment and decree dated 20.03.2013. Assailing the said decrees, this appeal was filed on 03.04.2013.
3
2. On 19.08.2013 while ordering notice to the respondent, operation and execution of the impugned decree passed by the trial Judge was stayed for a period of four weeks. The said order was not extended subsequently.
3. Sri Prakash R. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the decree passed by the trial Judge and affirmed by the appellate Court, impugned in this appeal was put in execution in E.P.No.82/2013 and pursuant to the delivery warrant issued, the decree was executed. An affidavit having been filed on 28.09.2013, which was not objected to by the learned advocate of the Jdrs., the execution petition was disposed of, as the decree was fully satisfied. Learned advocate submitted that in view of execution of the impugned decrees herein and the delivery of possession of the suit premises by the appellant, this appeal does not survive for consideration. 4
4. Perused the order sheet of E.P.No.82/2013, on the file of Prl. Civil Judge at Bijapur. Said execution case was instituted to issue delivery warrant as per decree passed in O.S.No.468/2007 against the Jdrs. to vacate and hand over vacate possession of the suit premises i.e., bearing CTS Nos.867/A, 890 and 891 being a corner shop measuring 27x19 ft. Possession warrant was directed to be issued by the Execution Court on 08.08.2013. I.A.No.1 having been filed by the Jdrs., on 14.08.2013, case was advanced. On 23.08.2013, taking note of interim order passed in this appeal, order passed in the execution case on 08.08.2013 was recalled. On 24.09.2013, case was adjourned for hearing on the memo and report by the decree holder. On 28.09.2013, decree holder filed his affidavit stating that the decree is satisfied. Jdr. was present and did not had any objection to state to the said affidavit. The Execution Court having perused the affidavit of the decree holder and taking note of the submission made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, 5 passed an order, disposing of the execution petition, as fully satisfied.
In view of the said events, the appellants having delivered the possession of the suit premises to the respondent/decree holder, in E.P.No.82/2013, this appeal does not survive for consideration.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG