§
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24%! DAY OF AUGUST 2009 H
BEFORE " '
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA 4.1:'. j" A
CIVIL REVISION PETITION N0: I060.'/§O'O9'j; 4'
Ch». I " " ' 4'
CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS NO.1oé43/:'a oOV9,1IO's4'[2Ob3;g
AND 1086g'2009*-A
BETWEEN: ' V'
SRLGOUSAMOHMED
AGE:-47 YEARS» '
R/O SIDDARUT)HA"§'v_4'IA'I"I--[.C}'IfAW'L...
STATION ROAVD';'~.I¢1UI;:;,:V " " ~
DHARWAD DIST. ff. 71 "
.-- " PETITIONER
{IN CRP N0.1060/2009)
SR1. SHANKA15§"GOUDA;. SA{~-l_5'A'E'E:L
AGE 69 YEARS '- '
'R,/_O. S_:D:)AR:§DII.A...I¢1ATH DHAWL
r.STAT.1ON R'OAD;«.HUBLI
DIST. '13HARvV.A<DV"
PETITIONER
(IN cm» N0.1083/2009)
SR1. NA2RAiS1.NhGxRAO M. BAGARE
" " 5--.4xGIs;: 58 YEARS
4 mo. 'SR1. SEDDARUDHA MATH DHAWL
'- STA'1"'I.()_1\l ROAD, HUBLI
_ '-I2'.-4}iS'I'. DI-IARWAD
PETITIONER
g (IN CRP N0.1084/2009)
'4
R)
SR1. SI-IASI-IIKALA S. MUDALAGI
AGE: 56 YEARS
R/O. SR1. SIDDARUDHA MATH DI-IAWL
STATION ROAD, I-IUBLI
DIST. DI-IARWAD
A ' PIfEfi'rI0.N"EjRU If
(its: CR1'? No;1_0sgs,{2»ofo9)v .
(By Sri: J S SI-IETTY ASSOCIATES,_AD_VOOA'IIES)u
AND: I A'
SR1 SIDDI-IAROODI-IA SwA'M1:1"M1ATH{.fi*Ri}"S[TICQMMITTEE
HUBLI BY ITS TRUSTEES -- _ 1
1. SRI.MAHENDRA.__F-- S1NG1g11.:'..~: . .
AGE:44 YE.ARS,5;R_[V_O~.SINGH1 S.:~:_DUA1<1
ALGUNDGI 'S1MP1GjgLL1__ '
Ix.)
SR1 E'A1.U._T '1»1.AeAL11K.QN--1p1V._\
AGE: 56~._YEARS- " , '
R /0 BANASHANKARI LA-"i'OUT
NEAR SHAN-r1,A COLONY CHURCH
EE'NGER1._,HUBL;.. .....
' ,.I)R.RA_§Vf1flIC..I;IA.NDRA NARAYANA JOSI-II
--- A1GE;1V72.. .YE}11R.S
"R/-0 DR0fJ(sSH1 NURSING HOME
NAvA_m»'QjDHYA NAGAR, HUBLI
" SR1 G1_R1DHAR VENKATARAMAN NAIK
_ R. O AGE: 54 YEARS, R/O. H. NO.2 SUMAGIRI
A' *A_P_QORVA NAGAR, SILVER TOWN MAIN
"ZGOKUL ROAD, HUBLI
1"
v
U)
L.)
SMT GIRIJADEVI KALLAPPA TALAWAI
AGE: 61 YEARS
R/O C/O SRI K F TALAWAI
KRISHNAPUR, OLD HUBLI
DHARWAD DIST.
SRI TUKARAM BHIVAJI POL
AGE: 57 YEARS
R/O I-IIREPETH GHODKE ON--I._ A
OLD HUBLI, HUBLI, DHARWAIIDEST.
SR1 MAHADEV G BAGEIWADI _ --<
AGE): 54 YEARS ~ '-- ; _
R / O 802, MAHALINGESHWAR V_NAGAR .,
GOKUL ROAD, 1*{IJBLI;""""' ' I
DRGOVIND G4UE'}D_ACHA_R'{A MANNUR
AGE:67 .
R /O LA_}§M1"'~BAL1£'x_KRISHNA SQUARE
STATTONTROAD, H;jfaBL1'~._"
SR1 MALLIKARJUNNAGAPPA KANTH1
AGE: 42 YEARS'- ' . '
R/O 2ND FLOOR, "S/3 ASHVAMEDHA CASEL
NEAR" HALLIKSRI' HOSPITAL
KELSHWARDR, HUBLEN
A ' RA..NG.A~.S'ADD1
AGE:' 4~9*YEARE?~; R / O ARALIKATTI ONI
OLD'HUBL}_, DHARWAD DIST.
SRi4"QURU.S'1DDAPRA G KAMMUR
AGE: 69 'YEARS
R/Q SIDDESHWAR NIVAS
* STDDESHWAR COMPOUND
BANKAPUR CI-IOWK
B ROAD, HUBLI A 24
$
r
g
13.
I5.
16.
{By ASfi';...§}.I§.ANDANIMATH, ADV.)
SRI.R.G NALAVADI
AGE: 82 YEARS
R/O SI-IRISHAIL SADHAN
U B HILL, DHARWAD
SR1 B V SOMAPUR ;
AGE: 52 YEARS, R/O "ANUGRAHAff '
BEHIND MODERN SCHOOL '-
SRASWATHPUR, DI-IARWAD 'fl_
SR1 K L PATIL . _
AGE: 54 YEARS, R /OREDDY CO'LQI\IY~--_
SARASWATHPUR, DHARW-AD__ éi. ' "
SR1 SHAMANAND BALAPRA PUJER1 I .. "
AGE:39
R /O KADAS'-R_1D:1gE:SHwAR.N1._LAyA ,
LAXMIDEVI1RA13AO=AT'I'Ii'.'-ROAD '
VIDYANAGAR', GvQK:'..K' "
I3EL(}AUM-- DIST. ' ' ' "
SR1 A'I'JAAI'J.DAI<lUTx/{}L..R"A. MAO-AOUM
AGE: 57'=.Y]E3ARS-- _ " '
R/O MANJUNATH LAYOU
SIa;'1VA.O1R1, DHARWAD
« B£S.WARAJ PRRASAPRA SIDDASHRAM
' AGE:--5? YEARS
R_/O NfO..,31, "SIDDHAPRAKASH"
" .SIDDHAF:OGDHA NAGAR
S'RINAGAI?;', DHARWAD
. ' RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
J}.–
resp0ndent–trust had instituted the suit in
respect of the petitioners.
2. The suit in question was decreed ._ in fiavo_u’r_of”‘the”.
respondents. The petitioners herein w__ere_ beforepthe’ Li;)Wer”–
Appellate Court in R.A No. 173/
3. Insofar as the p§§i~i:ion1ei1?iiiv_iiiVi’:'(gee..No.ioé4/a009, he
had aiso preferred second;éP’iFi?sis;1.\Vi:-rc..%., and the
same had been judgment and
decree of eject1ne_n’t,,ith’e. sarrie._has_.attained finality. Pursuant
thereto, the resporiicienit’hgeireinwinstituted Execution Petitions in
EP No.17?)/.2007,i’s5,r.éooi*7,i 160/2007 and 176/2007
respectively, In .. pending execution proceedings, the
had filed applications under Section 47 R/W
Sectio”n raising certain contentions indicating that
the jud_gment.and decree is null and void and the same cannot
execuitedil One of the contentions urged therein is that all
itrllsit property and committee members shall be under the
« ‘Control Of Chairman as pér the scheme. Insofar as the trust,
5*
n.
the suit was not filed as per the scheme and as such the”
cannot be executed. The respondenbtrust filed *
and the Executing Court after conside1f,ing._the riiral “co:1itentio’nsV_V
has dismissed the application filed under $_eie~tion’4″7* of 7-It
4. While assailing the pa’ss_e<'i,_in: ii'E3i<ecution ii
Petitions, the learned Counsel foifAithe.ipeti'tionets' hvastirged the
very same contentions which the Executing
Court and contended .__that:_' iiniiVie:Wi'iof.i:'theiisaid'contentions, the
Execution Petitieizs ~;\'jQt_A_:f11ain.taiinahilfiigince the judgment
and decr¢e"¢;é;rm.};i: _bei _
5. T_l’1e._ ior the respondent has filed
details objectieori sta’teiiie11t:”‘to4these petitions and contended
_ that suit had’ instituted as per the scheme and the
regard to this aspect was made in the
ori’gin-a_l been upheld in the appeal and therefore,
i ii the very sarne-contention would not have been urged before the
it Ei5<e.Cuting".–~COurt and therefore the Executing Court was
jgu-sti'fi»ed=iin this regard. J)'
6. In the light of the contentions urged by 2
Counsel, at the outset on hearing the learned Couinsei,Ii’
that the Executing Court has advertie-‘d”Ito« the conte’ri_Lions7in’–3
detail. While considering this aspectiiiof the’ mat’ter’~rega’i’.dinVg’».
the non-executability of the judgment .__ar1dAi”vdeCreIe;’ tithe I
Executing Court has rnadespecific—-reference to the-original suit
wherein the said contention”had,_vbeenfl:’dec,ided and also the
same contention affirmed i:nVV’the;§1ppeap1.,. I
7. In a ‘convinced that the
EXecuting’iVCou’rt.:.:’yvas;§ustiifie.d’ in iiitsiiiconciusion since it is not
open for to .urge the said contention in
the Executir1gi”-Courtf.wh.en”~*”the very same issue has been
‘Vconsidei’ed;_.,arid the iipev—Ltioners herein had failed in the appeal
‘a.swé11;._ this Court had expressed the View that this
.. Court Would’ riot interfere on merits and it was suggested that if
the respondents are agreeable not to press the point any
=.V’fi.,irt1ier;.._sorz1e time could be granted to vacate by way of
i-indtiigence, subject to the conditions that would be imposed by
Court. Ir1.this I’egE1’t£i, it is agreed on behalf of the
I”%
I”:-
petitioners that an appropriate affidavit would be
registry of this Court agreeing to the conditions ealsoi it
petitioners would voluntarily underta1f;e'”that they not ‘ufrgev–.e
the contentions made in this petition any
8. In the light of the above, “fo11ov.v’i’n.g_V irtiatsie.
1. The petitioners herein f_ai’fidavit before this
Court wherein, thieii”:-.._indi’L:aition they would
iaffidaiivit that they do not press
the ‘subject to reasonable time
‘beinig”–«grantet1 Court to vacate. In the light of
_petitione__1fsv agreeing on such affidavit, the
herein are granted six months time from
todia§§.:’to1=.iiracate and deliver the vacant possession of
it the schedule property.
i it At this stage, it is noticed that insofar as the
A petitioners in CRP No.1084/2009 had suffered a
J
an
decree wherein the arrears of rent has beer1meo–m’p*Lf1tedt«
at Rs.12,500/~ and the further amount is
been decreed at the rate of RS250/p– ‘per: friorrij
01.01.2004 onwards. Insofar as theiipet1’ti.o1aeis”~ini*.
CRP No.1060/2009, the–si?it~opuntA.payabV1e’-wé;s”Rs.z§5/– ” 0
per month and the same dupe frcjm-..ot.v.’t>1.2oo4
onwards. lnsoafizk;/,,ast__ 2i”pie.titioners in CRP
No.1083/2009 the”amount.t.i:paya.bl.ei’is Rs.100/– per
month,” butfa_s.’_ of noW’._thei*e:fis no arrears. Insofar as
ci2i3hvN’e…Vi’-0t’§s/2oiQ’9,_”th;tatnotfint payable is RS.IOO/-
per is due from 01.04.2004.
. In viewieof the ‘iar1’eai*Vs in respect of three petitioners
are.outstan.d:ing as stated above, it is made clear that
the petitioners in CR? No.1060/2009 and
the arrears from 01.01.2004 and
0}.__’.’04f2004 respectively at the rate of Rs.85/– and
Rs; 100 /- per month shall be calculated and the same
wishall be paid to the respondents within a period of
four weeks from today. Insofar as the petitioners in
~29
god:
6. Considering that this Court has granted
time to vacate subject to the conditions it
above, the delivery warrant :i’s’s’u’ed
Court shall be kept in aeeeeegtter
and if the conditions imposed above are’-not.:oot11f$1ied i’
with, it would be open for–~th”e-respondent._tQ_.ti’1ove the
Executing Court ii ‘to — it it delivery warrant.
Simi1ar1y,_at_the {end ~ 5f tithe petitioners
do over possession, it
Court to execute the
delivery’ W’a1’r_a1’1t at tftat * stage.
In tern1sH0f’vthe’a’oo\ie;…these petitions stand disposed of.
.1
‘Similaflsz, Etihe__Mise”.” «cmiv Nos. 104457/2009, 105673 /2009,
ii’–1.A05Vo74/20409105691 /2009 also stand disposed of as not
survit/ing f’oirii–t§o_n}°;.iideration.
J UDGE