Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Kavitha vs Sri Mohan Kumar Babu on 13 January, 2020

Author: Alok Aradhe

Bench: Alok Aradhe

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020


                         PRESENT :

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                           AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

                 R.F.A. No. 559 OF 2016

BETWEEN:


Smt. Kavitha
W/o. Raghunath S
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.425/58,
9th Main, Vijayanagar,
Bangaluru-560 040

                                                ...Appellant
(By Sri. Harish Kumar M.S., Advocate -Absent)

AND:


Sri. Mohan Kumar Babu
Rao Vandakudari
S/o. Babu Rao Vandakudari,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at Gaddi House, Ward No.6,
Kapparapet, Ilkal-587 125.
                                              ...Respondent
(By Sri. M.N.Madhusudhan, Advocate for C/R)
                              2

       This RFA is filed under Order XLI 1 R/w Sec.96 of CPC,
1908 against the judgment and decree dated:28.01.2016
passed in O.S.No.2087/2014 on the file of the 1st Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH No.2), partly
allowing the suit for ejectment.

    This RFA coming on for Admission              this   day,
ALOK ARADHE, J., delivered the following:

                    JUDGMENT

Sri. M.N. Madhusudhan, learned counsel for respondent.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in compliance of the impugned decree dated 28-01-2016, the possession of the premises in question has already been handed over to the respondent by the appellant and the respondent be granted liberty to initiate the Execution proceedings for recovery of arrears of rent.

3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal is disposed of with a liberty to the respondent to initiate 3 the Execution proceedings against the appellant for recovery of rent.

With the aforesaid liberty, the appeal is disposed of.

In view of disposal of the main appeal, pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE BMV*