Karnataka High Court
Bommayya Timmappa Nayak vs Venkatraman Rama Naik on 14 July, 2014
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.104346/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BOMMAYYA TIMMAPPA NAYAK
AGE: 82 YEARS,
OCC: CONTRACTOR,
R/AT: BELEKERI 581 321.
TQ: ANKOLA 581 314.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. PRAKASH ANDANIMATH, ADV.)
AND
VENKATRAMAN RAMA NAIK
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. BELEKERI 581 321.
TQ: ANKOLA 581 314.
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 04.03.2014 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE LEARNED
CIVIL JUDGE, ANKOLA, IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.119 OF
2011.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
O R D E R
In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 4.3.2014 passed by the Executing Court to reissue delivery warrant.
2. The petitioner has suffered decree in O.S.No.140/2004 for ejectment. The appeal filed by the petitioner in R.A.No.91/2007 has been dismissed. Thereafter, execution proceedings have been initiated by the decree holder in the year 2011. By order dated 19.11.2014 the Executing Court had ordered for issue of delivery warrant. It was not executed. Therefore, on 4.3.2014 the Executing Court has ordered for reissue of delivery warrant. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this petition.
:3:
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises.
4. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The decree has been passed in the year 2004 in O.S.No.140/2004. The appeal has been dismissed on 18.12.2010. Four years have elapsed. The petitioner has not delivered possession. Therefore, there is no justification to grant time to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr: