Karnataka High Court
Satyasankalpamurthy @ Anand vs Sharanabasappa S/O. Gangayya ... on 18 March, 2014
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.102640/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SATYASANKALPAMURTHY
@ ANAND
S/O. HANUMANTA RAO GOMBI
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. JOSHI GALLI,
SVM COLLEGE OPPOSITE,
ILKAL
TQ: HUNGUND ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHARANABASAPPA
S/O. GANGAYYA SARAGANACHARI
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O.JOSHI GALLI,
SVM COLLEGE OPPOSITE,
ILKAL
TQ: HUNGUND ..RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI.RAJASHEKHAR K.,& SRI.B.CHIDANANDA,
ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2014 ON THE
APPLICATION DATED 25.01.2014 IN R.A.NO.55/2013
ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUNAGUND,
PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING `B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the order passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund in R.A.55/2013 whereunder application for adjournment has been dismissed. On account of non payment of court fee appeal also came to be dismissed.
2. Respondent herein filed a suit for ejectment in O.S.252/2012 which came to be decreed by Judgment and decree dated 21.10.2013. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner herein filed an appeal in R.A.55/2013 along with application for stay. Lower Appellate court 3 allowed I.A.2 and execution of Judgment and decree passed in O.S.252/2012 came to be stayed subject to deposit of `60,000/- and payment of court fee on mesne profits. Accordingly the writ petitioner deposited the arrears of rent amounting to `60,000/- before trial court. However, court fee as ordered was not paid. As noticed herein above for non payment of court fee appeal came to be dismissed.
3. During the pendency of present proceedings parties have settled their dispute and have filed a joint memo as per the terms agreed to in the said joint memo. Same reads as under:
1. The Petitioner/Tenant voluntarily agrees to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises on or before end September 2014 without any resistance or seeking any further extension of time. The Landlord/respondent herein will waive-up the rent for the above said period of Six months.
For the said condition the petitioner/tenant has 4 also agreed for the same. The petitioner/tenant has agreed to pay Electricity consumption bill for the suit schedule premises regularly till the date of vacating the schedule premises.
2. The Petitioner/Tenant shall vacate the schedule premises without compelling the landlord, directly or indirectly for initiation of execution proceedings against him after the completion above said period.
3. The Petitioner/tenant has undertakes before this Hon'ble Court that, he will not sub- let/sub-lease or induct any third parties into the schedule premises, and he will not cause any damage to the schedule premises till delivery of the possession of the premises. Further he undertakes that, if he causes any damage to the schedule premises, he will make good the damage/loss caused to the suit schedule premises.
4. In the event of violations of any of the above conditions by the petitioner/Tenant, is liable to be evicted forthwith.
5
4. Parties are present before court and both parties admit execution of joint memo. They state out of their own free will and volition without any threat or coercion they have affixed their signatures to the joint memo after having understood the contents of joint memo. Learned Advocates appearing for the parties have identified the parties present before the court and have also affixed their signatures to the joint memo in token of having identified them. In view of the same, I do not find any impediment for accepting the joint memo. Accordingly it is hereby accepted. In view of the same Judgment and decree passed by trial court shall stand substituted to the terms agreed to between the parties under the joint memo.
5. Learned counsel for writ petitioner-tenant has also filed an affidavit of undertaking to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property voluntarily on or 6 before end of September, 2014. Said affidavit of undertaking is also placed on record. In that view of the matter placing the joint memo as well as affidavit of undertaking filed by tenant-writ petitioner this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the joint memo.
In the event of respondent making an application for withdrawal of the amount of rent in deposit before lower Appellate Court i.e., in R.A.55/2013, Lower appellate court shall release the said amount in favour of respondent/landlord on proper identification for which writ petitioner who is present before the court has also not objected to.
SD/-
JUDGE SBN