Karnataka High Court
Sri.A.G. Renu Prasanna vs Sri. Rahul Jain on 28 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43747
WP No. 1330 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 1330 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A.G. RENU PRASANNA
S/O. LATE R. GANGADARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: ADVOCATE
R/AT: NO.1769,
ADAM KHAN MASJID ROAD,
K.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570004
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SAGAR V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RAHUL JAIN
S/O. MADANLAL JAIN
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.106,
Digitally signed
SHRISHTHI SALIGRAMA APARTMENT,
by GEETHA ROAD, MYSURU-570004
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
20.12.2023 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.119/2020 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU AS PER
ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43747
WP No. 1330 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner who is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.119/2020 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru has filed this petition challenging an order dated 20.12.2023 by which, an objection raised by the petitioner to dismiss the execution petition was rejected.
2. The suit in O.S.No.172/2017 was filed for ejectment of the defendant and for arrears of rent. The said suit was settled in terms of a compromise, in terms of which, the defendant had agreed to pay Rs.1,98,000/- i.e., 50% of Rs.3,96,000/- by 30.06.2020. The plaintiff had agreed to receive 50% of arrears of rent, if the defendant vacated the premises by 30.06.2020. However, the defendant did not hand over possession of the property by 30.06.2020 and therefore plaintiff filed E.P.No.119/2020 to recover a sum of Rs.4,86,000/- and the rent that fell due. The defendant handed over the possession of the property to the plaintiff on 15.09.2021. He filed objections to execution petition contending that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo-moto W.P. -3- NC: 2024:KHC:43747 WP No. 1330 of 2024 No.3/2020 had extended the time to comply the terms of compromise and contended that he was not liable to deliver possession of the property by 30.06.2020 and that he was not liable to pay rent from 30.06.2020 till he delivered possession. The executing Court rejected the objections in terms of the order dated 20.12.2023 and therefore, the defendant/judgment debtor has filed this petition.
3. Learned Senior Counsel representing the judgment debtor submits that the judgment debtor could not hand over possession due to Covid-19 pandemic. He contends that possession could be handed over only in the year 2021 and therefore, the judgment debtor is entitled to the benefit of paying up Rs.1,98,000/- as per the settlement arrived at.
4. The fact that the parties had entered into a settlement, in terms of which, the defendant had agreed to vacate the premises and hand over possession by 30.06.2020 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the concession given by the plaintiff to receive Rs.1,98,000/- was in the light of the promise made by the defendant that he would vacate the premises by 30.06.2020. Since the defendant had not complied -4- NC: 2024:KHC:43747 WP No. 1330 of 2024 with the promise, his objections raised before the executing Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo-Moto W.P.No.3/2020 is not justified.
5. In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the executing Court in rejecting the objections filed by the defendant/judgment debtor to the execution petition.
6. Hence the petition is dismissed.
7. The Executing Court is directed to release any amount deposited by the judgment debtor before it to the decree holder.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35