M/S S.P.R. Groups vs Sri Masti Chandrashekar on 22 June, 2015

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S S.P.R. Groups vs Sri Masti Chandrashekar on 22 June, 2015

Bench: B.S.Patil

                                 1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2015

                               BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

                       CRP.No.180/2012

BETWEEN


   1. M/S S.P.R.GROUPS
      PARTNERSHIP FIRM
      HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THE R/AT NO. 65,
      VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
      BANGLAORE 04

   2. M.THIMMEGOWDA S/O MUTHE GOWDA
      AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

   3. SURESH KUMAR @ SURESH GOWDA
      S/O M. THIMME GOWDA
      AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

   4. PRASANA GOWDA S/O M. THIMME GOWDA
      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

      ALL ARE R/AT NO. 65, VANI VILAS ROAD,
      BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 04.      ... PETITIONERS

(By Sri RAVI L.VAIDYA, ADV.)


AND


SRI MASTI CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE MASTI VEERANA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT RAMAKRISHNA KRUPA,
NO. 1031/24, 1ST MAIN, 4TH BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGARA, BANGALORE 10.              ... RESPONDENT
                                 2



     THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 19.11.2011 PASSED IN EX.NO.347/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE,
REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS AS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HOLDING
THAT DECREE HOLDER TO PROCEED WITH E.P.

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

                            ORDER

1. In this revision petition, petitioners - judgment debtors are calling in question the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the Executing Court in Execution No.347/2010. By the said order, the Court below has overruled and rejected the objections filed by the judgment debtors to the execution of the decree dated 10.01.2008 passed on compromise entered into between the petitioners and the respondent in O.S.No.7421/2005.

2. The suit O.S.No.7421/2005 was filed by the respondent herein seeking ejectment of the defendants - petitioners herein from the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, both parties entered into a compromise and filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. As per the terms of the compromise defendants agreed to pay entire arrears of rent in two equal installments to the plaintiff and in 3 that regard first installment of Rs.1,08,000/- was paid through cheques bearing No.291730 dated 09.01.2008 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Basavanagudi Branch. Defendants - petitioners herein agreed to pay the balance arrears of rent of Rs.1,08,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 30.06.2008. It was agreed between the parties that if the defendants failed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.1,08,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 30.06.2008, the suit shall stand decreed forthwith in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. In the event the entire arrears of rent were paid on or before 30.06.2008, it was agreed that the suit shall stand dismissed without further orders. In this regard, in consideration of the compromise, the plaintiff agreed to recall the termination of tenancy and consented to continue the defendants as tenants of the suit schedule properties.

3. Execution Petition No.347/2010 was filed by the plaintiff decree holder complaining that as the defendants failed to pay the second installment of Rs.1,08,000/-, he was entitled to execute the decree of ejectment. Petitioners contended that they have paid the amount. They also urged that in terms of Clause (c) of paragraph 2 of the compromise decree the notice 4 terminating tenancy had been recalled and the tenancy had been continued, therefore, the decree was not executable. Both these contentions have been negatived by the Executing Court while overruling the objections filed by the judgment debtors. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners - judgment debtors and find absolutely no ground to entertain this revision petition. The terms of the compromise decree are clear inasmuch as in case defendants failed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.1,08,000/- on or before 30.06.2008, the suit for ejectment shall stand decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. As the judgments debtors - petitioners herein have not paid the arrears of rent, the findings recorded by the Court below holding that the judgment debtors failed to pay the second installment of Rs.1,08,000/- is just, legal and borne out from the pleadings on record.

5. Apparently no material was produced by the petitioners to show that the said amount towards arrears of rent was paid by them. Indeed, the first installment has been paid by way of cheque. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the second installment was paid by cash and no 5 receipt was obtained cannot be accepted having regard to the history of the litigation and the contest between the parties. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

5. As the petition is dismissed on merits, I.A.1/2012 filed seeking condonation of delay of 58 days in filing this petition is also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE PKS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court