Sri Sadakath Ulla vs Sri S Balasubramanyam on 15 July, 2015

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Sadakath Ulla vs Sri S Balasubramanyam on 15 July, 2015

Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2015

                      BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

      WRIT PETITION NO.29025 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :
SRI SADAKATH ULLA
S/O T.K.HAMZA SAHED
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.17/1,
IBRAHIM MASJID CORNER,
BANNIMANTAP,
MYSORE-570 015.
                                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)

AND

SRI S BALASUBRAMANYAM
S/O LATE A.SHANTHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.68,
BANNIMANTAP INDUSTRIAL "A" LAYOUT,
MYSORE-570 015.
                                      ... RESPONDENT

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD 04.07.2015 PASSED IN EX.P.NO.88/2015 BY THE
                                 2



HON'BLE II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSORE AS PER
ANNX-A AND ETC.,

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

2. Petitioner is a Judgment Debtor (JDR) in Execution Petition No.88/2015 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Mysuru. The said execution has arisen out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.713/2014 a suit filed for ejectment of this petitioner from the schedule premises described in the schedule appended to the said suit bearing O.S.No.713/2014. In the said execution petition, delivery warrant has been issued directing the ameen to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to the decree holder. Hence, present petition is filed. 3

3. It is submitted by Sri. Chethan.B, learned counsel for the petitioner that a regular appeal has been filed in terms of Section 96 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.713/2014 dated 09.01.2015 and that an application is also filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, requesting the First Appellate Court to stay the further proceedings of the judgment and decree drawn in O.S.No.713/2014. It is further submitted that Regular Appeal has been posted on 17.07.2015 and that he would request the First Appellate Court to consider the application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, at the earliest.

4. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Judge of the executing court in Ex.P.No.88/2015 issuing delivery warrant to the judgment debtor is stayed for a period of one month only from today, in order to enable the petitioner to request the First Appellate Court to pass appropriate orders on the application already filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC. The learned Judge of the First Appellate 4 Court at liberty to pass appropriate orders as early as possible but not later than within one month from today, in the said regular appeal.

With the above observations, petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE HJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court