IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF DECEMBER BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE-E ANAND ' WRIT PE'I'I'i'ION NO.336O=i BETWEEN: V 4' L' A V' i Sri U.P.Su1aima1'1, V aged about 67 years, s/O Hammabba. ._ « r/O No.34. Nekkilady village'; ' Puttur Taluk, _, D.K.Disu~ict_,?_ _ _ _ " ...PETI'rIONER (By M / AND:a_: A Z I Sri ViLia1_Ra_i, ' _ - _ S/0 Manjiarmiaa Raifi ' ' Ag€ACl1I31_'djOI'.V Maf'1jif.hC1.t.u House, '''' H . 'A &Bei*iyOO"r village. ' Ban£v..raI'Ta.iAVii}:._ A P.Qst. iBé§}iyOL1r'r;.V ~;).i<:.D1's'u~.i.a- ' RESPONDENT
(B3.}”Sz1’1ri;A§Krishna Bhat. Advocate}
H r This Wrii. Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 Of
fhe Corisiitiition Of India with a prayer to quash the impugneci
8
order at AI{11″l€’XL1I’€3″A dated 7.11.2009 passed by the Principal
Civil Judge (Junior Division] at Puttur in Exeflase
No.47/2009.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminaryv
group this day. the Court made thetolloaving:~.;’
ORDER’ V l V’
The present petition fiied ‘ ehallen .exeicutioni’
proceedings. The presentp_.pe’titioner ail tenant in
respect of certain pre”rnises–_t__ v5Tlvie.”‘I”espondent having filed
a suithliorivposs.e.ssio’r;..:_’and.’lWejectn’1ent, the same was
decreed: ” The._pejtitio~ne’1~.had however challenged it by
wa).«’*of a i’egt1’1a3* appeal which was dismissed for non«
‘I’helWrespondent had, subsequent to the
of-v.the appeal, taken out execution of the
jti”c1.gen_’ie11t.i”‘ and decree of the trial Court and a delivery
Awarrant was issued. In the meanwhile, the petitioner
preferred an application seeking restoration of the
it “appeal and had also fiied an application for stay of
%
execution. The same not having been Considered had
preferred the present petition seeking stay of exeeutlon
of the delivery warrant.
2. It transpires that deiiverywwarrafnt
on 13.11.2009. On the very
granted a stay of the saidlfexecuftion deiivery’
warrant. This Courtr”h_ad int.e’1″irh order of
stay for a period of eight ‘~day’s;:’ coming on for
hearing on was stated by the
Counsel forfjhe respyondent. that possession has been
taken o’f_the there was no order of stay
COrI1;I’II’L1_I}.i().’:1.Vtt”,*-da ‘to the respondent. The Counsel for the
Thhopwevermfwould submit that on 13.11.2009.
intimated that the matter is pending
consideration on the same day before this Court and
V. that thefiexecution may be kept in abeyanee, pending the
s~¢ssu”n and a memo was aiso filed to this effect. However,
it “since there was a communication gap in intimatirig the
Z
order, the warrant is said to have been executed. The
Counsel therefore sought time to ascertain the position
as on 08.12.2009 and the matter was adjournertto this
day.
3. It is now intimated that it is
possession has been de1ivered.g’l¥lo’weVc:r, .si_n’ee_ theXorc:ler T 0
of this Court was passed on the’:/eryz daylil/()’n ‘wh-ich,ilt’h.e
execution was enforced, tliere oughtptocjbellannlolrder of
restitution. This Court siJdglges:t:edlp’li’that the petitioner be
placed entlitlved for such an order of
restitution._ for the petitioner pleads
heljplessnelssr ‘Howevevr, he would submit that there is a
appeal and that he be permitted to take
the premises. till such time that the
appeal ‘is:’disposed of. This is not acceptable. In any
0 rAev_.entl;”‘.the possession having been delivered to the
responde’nt and since, the petitioner is not in a position
/5
to meet the conditions that are sought to be irifiposeci.
there is no merit. The petition is dismissed.
ST