Karnataka High Court
Mr Syed Fazaluddin vs Mr Arif Pasha on 12 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.281/2017
BETWEEN
MR. SYED FAZALUDDIN,
S/O MR. ABDUL GAFFAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S K.G.N. TEA STALL,
NO.5/27/2, NEW NO. 27/2/634/5,
DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM ROAD,
GOVINDAPURA,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU - 560 045.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
MR. ARIF PASHA,
S/O MR. ABDUL RASHEED,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/A NO.63, NEAR WATER TANK,
PILLANNA GARDEN,
SECOND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 045.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.NIKHILESH M RAO, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS
ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2017 PASSED IN
MISC.NO.153/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU, THIS PETITION
DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTENABLE.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner in Misc. Petition No.153/2017 before the X Additional Judge, Small Causes, Bengaluru challenging an order dated 17.07.2017, by which the Miscellaneous Petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth referred to as 'of CPC') was rejected.
2. The respondent herein filed S.C.No.689/2016 for ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed exparte and an execution petition was filed in Execution No.401/2017. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC 3 to recall the exparte decree in S.C.No.689/2016. Since the Court dealing with the miscellaneous petition felt that the execution petition filed in Execution No.401/2017 was fully satisfied, the Court did not feel it appropriate to recall the exparte decree. Hence, it rejected the miscellaneous petition.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present * petition is filed.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has now filed a suit for declaration that the judgment in S.C.No.689/2016 is not binding upon the petitioner and that an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession is passed. He therefore, submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this revision petition alive.
*Deleted vide Chamber Order dated 23.12.2021 4
5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The fact that the Execution No.401/2017 is disposed of as having been fully satisfied in terms of the order dated 17.07.2017 is not disputed. If that be so, the Court was fully justified in not entertaining the miscellaneous petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. Now that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that the judgment in S.C.No.689/2016 does not bind his interest, where interim injunction is granted to protect his possession, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this revision petition pending before this Court.
7. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is entitled to urge all the contentions raised in this revision petition in the civil suit filed by him.
Sd/-
JUDGE GJM