Sri C A Babu vs Sri Jagadish Kumar on 1 October, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri C A Babu vs Sri Jagadish Kumar on 1 October, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 Bangaao_Ee._w 560 002.

 V.Rayappa, Adv.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE lst DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. 3UsTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA   

WRIT PETITION No.29221/20107;:  'R 

AND  

WRIT PETITION No.2954C,(2o:o.. :;'GAl'~*!._--1CP:"C)'   

BETWEEN:

1. Sri C.A.Babu,
Son of Chinnaswar,ny;,V_
Aged about 64 years.

2. Sri E_3.HRaj'es{h,'V«:,__ V
SoT1'of'C;Ai;.i3ab&I,' _ _
Age__cI aboutifi-._Vyears,_"~----

Both are Iresi'din'_c;Oat 
NOr3, 1S€_vFiOQr!'v.' 
"E%JarIs.waméppa Lana,
-_S'.'J.;_P, Road Cross,"

 PETITIONERS

AND:

A  ,.:Sr.§,J4agéi'd'ish Kumar,
  _3Qn"Qf iate M.C.Marinanjundaiah,
 'Ag'ec'i about 50 years,

Rﬁesiding at No.328, Sai Leeia,

 '"'7"' Cross, Lakshmi Road,



Shanthinagar,
Bangalore -- 560 027.  
 RESPOi_\iD_E~.l\iT

(By Sri M.Ashok Kumar, Adv.)

These writ petitions are filed under _,Ar--ti.r.l:esV «. 
227 of the Constitution of India""pl'ayin*g to_l'qujasi:..'.~the«

impugned order dated 6.9.2010 pass-edlby,t'h.e"-Add'i~t_ional

City Civil Judge, Bangalore in "«Ex--._N'o.15'i'4/'Z009
consequently allow the appiication f'i£.ed by thej_petitio§ners_V:;

for stay of the execution proceegdmgg /~\l'lE'l€V;?(.LlglfVE3 -*-,E."

These petitions Vr:oming..l'o'n-."i_;n dprelimitriary hearing B'
group this day, the Courtjy'-ma-de;the"folilowigng:

The resp¢i*j.a¢.r.t.lrlnstltrqitgll ﬂ€V)V.'lSVV.:i~i0'i.«3989/2008 in the
City Civil  ejectment of the
petitioners  p'et_i"tio_n. schedule premises. The suit
was deereeéd on  and the petitioners/defendants

were'directed'-to"vacate and deiiver vacant possession of

petilltiorrschedule premises, pay arrears of rent and

 profits from the date of suit till delivery of

pos'sessgi'on.7 After expiry of 30 days period allowed under

 J't.he_. said "decree, the respondent/decree holder filed Ex.P

*£\_lo'.1l354/2009, wherein a delivery warrant was issued on

-»-24.10.2009 against the petitioners/judgment debtors. la:

L») Petitioners filed I.A.i\£o.5 under Order 21 Rule 26 of C§_3C for staying further proceedings in the execution ca_se_.ﬂ_tl_'i?lv1ve said application was rejected by an 06.09.2010. I.A.E\3o.4 filed igys0petitidher%sg%;ti'dg'm%ent'" V debtors to recall the delivery warrant was also rejected. I.A.No.3't_i_l'ed bylthie decteAe«i._:i'iolde3r forui"

police help was allowed andAgas:l§ie;n,_del\rer\Zywavyirant was ordered to be issued 'with. E;_.'dggtrggdfi{ﬂ,lT}.A:'>tU., hreak open the lock put to theecheditiedipsemaseiegydmj%soi:ce help. Said orders "writ petitions by the l-TheV:pe_t~iti'o'n:e'rs.-have filed Misc.No.838/2009 under_Order Rule 1'3 dread with Section 151 CPC against "V"«.,the:'res*pondentditto "" '"set--aside the judgment and decree s _datedt g31[,0it.20tQ9 passed in O.S.No.3989/2008. The said petiéjtionvislpending consideration.

The delivery warrant issued against the .' kpetitiiloners in Ex.P No.1554/2009 has not been executed. '"Petitioners have not paid the arrears of \:it and mesne profits in terms of the aforesaid decree. Learned counsel for the respondent admits that the petitioners h.av:e'«4.4ipaVid Rs.15,000/- on 30.09.2010.

4. Keeping in view:;; pf;

Misc.No.838/2009, wherein an app'i~i.c;a'tion se.ekin'g"

operation and execution of t'h'e:d.ecree"'dated? 31.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.39':89/20_O€§"_:'is':__ p'e'nding,'i"Ideem it appropriate to dispose of as foilows:

The __p_ﬁ*3haf.i«' iﬂdeipiosiit/pay in E><.P No.1S54_["206'9}"' Vfurt'|'ier' "s11:nj_}of Rs.15,000/- before 31.1o.'2o1,o.if*irre§r,e'r1«diir1~~deposit/pay in Ex.P.No.1554/ 2009, furtheri spun':_o4Trv.'RS1:3§}1C)O0/~ before 30.11.2010.

«execution"V of deiivery warrant issued in e_V_'E'x_.TP.'3\ioi;-11$$'4;i2QO9 shall stand stayed tilt 30.11.2010 sdbject Vto:i::e.on1pliance i.e., deposit/payment of the said (1 In case of default on the part of the petitioners to pay the amount indicated supra, the de|ivery_.vw:a.rira.nt issued against the petitioners shall be liable ~ and possession of the premises _recovered"'f'ro.rri. them in accordance with law.

The court wherein Misc_§i~E.o.8?»"8;'2it}O9 Apzen.d.En5g, hereby directed to try__ and dei_spiose"~o€ eE.the.r,_the§ pending interlocutory app|icatio--nse.,theiiein""--V§:iir:"t.he Misc.petition before 30.11.20;-of V Ordered V \ sal-

Iudge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court