Vishnusa vs G.Ramaiah on 15 June, 2015

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vishnusa vs G.Ramaiah on 15 June, 2015

Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2015

                       BEFORE

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

      WRIT PETITION NO.10905/2015 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:
VISHNUSA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
PROP.OM SHREE CUT PIECE CENTER,
NO.8, SUJATHA COMPLEX,
BELOW LAKANS TAILOR,
BVK IYENGAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 053.
                                     ... PETITIONER

(By Sri: NARAYANAN M R, ADV.)


AND

G.RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
S/O LATE G N GANGAIAH,
NO.397, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
                                   ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri: B JANARDHANA, ADV. )


     THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
REJECTION OF I.A.FILED U/S.152 AND 153 OF CPC VIDE
                             2


IT'S ORDER DTD.27.2.2015 IN O.S.NO.1492/11 i.e. ANNEX-
K AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.A. i.e. ANNEX-J AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE EJECTMENT SUIT FILED IN
O.S.NO.1492/11 BY THE RESPONDENT / PLAINTIFF AND
ETC.


    THIS W.P COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                       ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The order passed on the applications filed under Sections 152 and 153, C.P.C. have been dismissed by order dated 27.2.2015 in O.S.1492/11 which was pending on the file of XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. Petitioner herein was the sole defendant in the said suit. Respondent herein was the sole plaintiff. Plaintiff had filed the suit for the relief of ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule premises in O.S.1492/11. Defendant had raised several contentions, one of them being the very jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit for ejectment on the ground that the 3 area of the commercial premises was less than 140 sq. feet.

3. Considering the contentions of the parties, the learned judge chose to allow the suit granting 10 days time to the defendant to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession. Consequent upon such decree, plaintiff (respondent herein) has taken possession of the premises by executing the decree. Before possession was taken in execution proceedings, the defendant chose to file two applications under Sections 152 and 153, C.P.C. requesting the court to consider the jurisdictional aspect raised in the written statement, since the same has not been considered.

4. If the issue regarding jurisdiction of the court as raised in the written statement is not at all considered by the trial court, the remedy is to file a separate appeal. Instead of doing so, plaintiff chose to file two 4 separate applications and the trial court has rightly rejected the same on the ground that no clerical mistake or typographical error is found.

5. No good grounds are made out to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE vgh*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court