'"R/A~RO;5,'T" c MAIN
_ 1 A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 02" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 200éFA'_
BEFORE
THE BON'ELE MR.JUSTIcE S,AEDUL"NATEER"»T.
R.F.A.NO.341 OE 2009 {RES}
BETWEEN:
MR.pARASMAL
S/O GTRDHARTLAL _
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS _H;, »,au».
PROP.M/S MANGILAL METAL CORPORATION _~
NO.1, E.S.LANE*,_ ,"""»A Hj;_ I ,1
ARCOT SRENIVASAQEAR7STREET"*A' _W
BANGALORE_56U053_q~vg_1g. ;'{v , ... APPELLANT
{By Sri. T E SATTSEOEANDRA KUEAR, ADV.)
AND
SMT.K.C.SETVAMMA_ A
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS'
W/OwLATE MAAADEVARRA
GTRTNAgAR,,§®_EEASE
'VEARGALORE-569085 ...RESpONDENT
(By Sri_RAfiA¢OpALANATDD, ADV.)
,'u;_ TRIS RFA Ts FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST
..VéUDGEERT AND DECREE DATED: 21.01.2009 EASSED TN
._ .j,O S NO.6493/2005 ON THE FILE OE TEE XEV' ADDL.
"_vCfTY CTVTL JUDGE, BANGALORE CETY, DECREEZNG TEE
*,.SUT FOR EJECTMENT AND MESNE PROFITS.
,2,
THIS REA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,-.__ THE?
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 7
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against’_Lheip”
judgement and decree in O.$.Nop6§93/2Do5,dated}
21.1.2009 on the filepgoflf tiqe_-“‘v-xiv_.p¢1av’i§’
Civil Judge, Bangalore. RIhe_appellant was the
defendant in the shit and the tespondent was
the plaintiff,
2. Ihe” shit Vfiled.?bfg the plaintiff was
“for ejeetnent pi the defendant from the suit
temis =
sohedfile’premisessand”for mesne profits. The
Court below.decfeed the suit in the following
‘”{i)f?he suit of the plaintiff is
decreed with costs as under:
(ii) The plaintiff is entitled to
‘:eject the defendant from the suit
schedule property. The defendant
is directed. to deliver vacant
possession of the suit schedule
-3-
property within three months from
today, failure of which theg,
plaintiff is entitled to recover a a
vacant possession of’ the _sfiitf,’;.*
schedule property from _r,the~fl
defendant by due process of lewd Vi
(iii) The plaintiff is entitied to
mesne profits from the date or tfiéw’
suit i.e., g7.8.gQbSati;1 recovery
of possession of the suit schedule
property.
(iv) iThére_ishail_ be “a” separate
enquiry tn ascertain mesne profits
iunder *;a§ro:e Rule 12 CFC.
(Vi”Drawideoreegaccordingly.”
tux 3dn_When: the xnatter is taken for orders
todayfriearhed counsel for the parties submit
that ‘the imatter has been amicably settled
ih,betweeh the parties. They have already filed
ayijoint memo dated 31.8.2009, which is as
Wfinder: