DIRECTION
OR ORDER TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE OF THE
EXECUTION PETITION NO.2271/2009 PENDING BEFORE THE
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE ... Court regarding cases in Track-II i.e., Execution
Cases, Divorce and Ejectment matters, the Presiding
Officer shall endeavor to dispose of the cases within
INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.04.2017 ISSUED IN
EXECUTION PETITION NO.66/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE ... that judgment and decree for
ejectment having become final as on date, respondent -
decree holder has continued the execution proceedings
4
and no fault
1076/2016, being aggrieved of the order dated
26.9.2016 in the said execution petition, directing the
petitioner ... case are that the
respondent and another filed suit for ejectment against
3
one Sri Shabarish and the suit came to be decreed
judgment and decree of
ejectment having attained finality in R.F.A.379/2014,
respondent herein has filed an Execution Petition in
Execution case
order dated 8th June 2017 on I.A. No.2 made in
Execution No.1222/2017 on the file of the III Additional City
Civil ... 6322/2014 against the defendant/respondent no.2 -
Satish @ Satish Shetty for ejectment, arrears of rent and
for damages contending that the suit schedule property
applicable, but this principle is very much applicable to suits
for ejectment filed under the provisions of the T.P. Act . If the
tenant ... permitted to take this defence, the
lessor will be permanently precluded from ejecting his tenant
or lessee. Therefore, the argument of the appellant
permit the amendment
would create needless complications at the
stage of execution in the event of the plaintiff-
appellant succeeding in the suit.
6. The appeal ... amendment sought for by the plaintiff in the
suit for ejectment is imperative for proper and effective
adjudication of the case. The amendment will
petitioner is before this Court assailing the order
dated 20.04.2017 passed in Execution Case No.139/2016.
2. The Executing Court after considering the
application ... respondents were aware that the
petitioner was in possession, even if an ejectment order
was to be obtained the same should have been secured
only
6688/2004. That suit was filed by the respondent
plaintiff seeking ejectment of petitioner herein from the
suit schedule property. The details of the suit ... First Appeal and the decree of the trail
Court has been confirmed. Execution proceedings have
been filed. In those proceedings, an application under
Order
confirmed in the Suit.
3. I submit that the confirmation of the
ejectment Order awarded by the Sole Arbitrator
has been challenged in the above ... Suit
Schedule Property without driving the
Respondent/Landlord to file Execution
Proceedings. I further undertake not to seek any
further extension of time beyond
