state that the aforesaid
execution petition was filed by respondent no.1-
landlord for execution of the ejectment decree dated
13.7.2012 passed in the suit ... property on the date agreed,
respondent no.1-landlord initiated the aforesaid
execution proceeding to execute the decree made in
the suit.
4. The petitioner
29059/2013
impugned order dated 27.06.2013 passed by the Executing
Court, in Execution case No.38 of 2007, wherein
the Executing Court, on a detailed ... execution proceeding is of the year 2007 and the
execution petition has been filed by the decree-holders for
execution of the ejectment decree
allow
the respondent to take possession of the premises as already execution
petition is filed.
Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Pal Singh ... that
6
the purchaser has no right to file a suit for ejectment.
In the case on hand, review petitioner has raised several grounds
FILED UNDER ORDER 41
RULES 5 OF CPC PRAYING TO STAY THE EXECUTION AND
OPERATION OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2006 PASSED BY
THE IV ADDL ... appellants. Perused the
judgments of the two Courts below. The decree of
ejectment passed by the trial Court is confirmed by the
lower Appellate Court
Smt. B.V Sudhamani D/O Late Sri V V ... vs Sri. K. Ramesh Shetty
XIII-ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ... decreed the suit
filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein for ejectment and
accordingly has directed the petitioners herein to vacate
and deliver vacant
Tejabir Singh vs Wahid Khan on 17 September, 2013
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi
Sri Haji C K Abdul Rehman vs Sri Y Narasimaiah on 21 June, 2013
Author
