B.C. Shanthakumar vs H.C. Ravishankar on 10 April, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B.C. Shanthakumar vs H.C. Ravishankar on 10 April, 2017

Bench: Aravind Kumar

                          1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

             W.P.NO. 14830/2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

B.C. SHANTHAKUMAR
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
PROPRIETOR
M/S B.C. SHANTHAKUMAR
AND BROS, 1ST MAIN
NEW MANDIPET
TUMAKURU-570 101.
                                       ... PETITIONER

       (BY SRI.H.V. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

H.C. RAVISHANKAR
S/O LATE H.M, CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O GANAPATHI NILAYA
3RD MAIN, VINAYAKANAGAR
TUMAKURU-572 101.
                                      ... RESPONDENT

       (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.04.2017 ISSUED IN
EXECUTION PETITION NO.66/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC AT TUMKURU AT
ANNEXURE-A.
                                2

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


                        ORDER

This writ petition is preferred by the judgment debtor being aggrieved by order dated 01.04.2017 passed by Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Tumkur in Execution No.66/2015 whereunder Executing Court has issued delivery warrant for executing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.236/2009.

2. I have heard the arguments of Sri Vasantha Kumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri H.V.Manjunath for petitioner and Sri Rajashekhar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent.

3. Respondent herein filed a suit for ejectment of petitioner-defendant in O.S.No.236/2009 which came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 10.07.2015 directing the defendant to pay damages of ` 8,000/- per month from the date of suit till delivery of vacant possession of schedule premises to the plaintiff. As per 3 said decree, total amount of damages from the date of suit i.e., 05.03.2009 till date would be ` 7,76,000/-.

4. Earlier to the above proceedings initiated by plaintiff, his mother had filed an eviction petition against present petitioner in HRC No.63/1994 which had ended in dismissal and thereafter present respondent had filed a suit for ejectment by issuing quit notice and terminating the tenancy. Petitioner has not made out any good ground to entertain this writ petition. Though it is contended that petitioner had filed an appeal R.A.No.74/2015 challenging the legality of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.236/2009 and said appeal has also been dismissed for default and petitioner claims to have filed a Miscellaneous Petition for restoration of the appeal, that by itself would not be a ground to stall the execution proceedings.

5. In that view of the matter, there being no dispute to the fact that judgment and decree for ejectment having become final as on date, respondent - decree holder has continued the execution proceedings 4 and no fault can be laid at the doors of the decree holder for proceedings with execution proceedings. Hence, petition is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE *sp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court