This Civil Revision Petition flied urfler Section 115..q6{;t”.’2,~E?’_(3
against the order dt.24.9.20G8 passed in FE)? ¥O!1998 9§:_”!hé’ fiié cf”
the Pr§. GJ (Jr. Dn.) , Putiur.
This petitien coming on for hearing this aay,:he%%co¢g¢ mad?’ « ..
the foifowing; V -I
.§’__f\Z.Q_§_.&7.,_
This Civil Revision Petit;’?V>fi”‘~i§ fiiéa :hé é;g£enda.it in
O.S.No.109i1987orz the me of the F_’f{“CI:i_vi:!..,,_ludg:ie Puttur.
2. The fame; at thé’ ‘r&§3sp§2:_1Vcf2éQrv:t” _Maila§pa Gowda
aiong with respondaerg No,:1″‘and:12 fi.a€¥.’:’ir:gSriégag§ésii’ti1e suit scheduie
prgpeny in__ 4..fiez\got:§éff::_–:’_ofv fig”; pe§:i;ghe% énd he had filed
0.S.No.,€i:;fede:§iptiibh’ of««vthe’§mortgage. On contest the
suit waé, d;ec:e:éi’i;v’:’j’-»T:’i1e. ‘p:§¥im§nary decree was made in the
foitowing te’:fm_s%: _
‘ _ ‘ – ?:”}9§’s élburt ‘§?éI’eb)f order and decree as foliows:
V :V’z’i’*:§a:f defendant do put pfainffffs in vacant
” .”_v ,Oo?;:é.§é.s.sion of the ‘A’ schedufie pmperfies on
‘ 9:: payment or depasit of R’s,35G6.#i
towards the mortgage amount and Rs.24,053v’-
towards fim value’ sf tfw impmvements by me
piainiiffs;
(is) that the defendant do pay plairziiffs 3 sum of Rs.109zf-
fcwards the costs ofabe fawyeris nofic :
R.A.E’4>u’§’;’.9Crz§1rhI%:§’ the same is pending aonsidaeratian.
H * 5 have hearé the Eeameé counse¥ for the petitioner. The
mIg_a§:rr:e<:£ counsei would submit that the suit was decreed for
yedemgtion of mortgage. The plaintiffs have finitiated ¥'ma£ decree
(55) that me defendant do pay piainfiffs a sum 0?
cc: towards the crusts afthis suit; " V (iv) 57.91' the parties are grafztgcj " " comp/ywflhihedecma,' 1 V
(as) that there shall be an -_e_rrqu}’fy*_q??io %}§v§::: ‘ .
the date of depositcfigosxh amuét and
vaiue of ‘A ‘ sgweduie: gzmperfiéaas. A ‘3
2. And :3 is hereby follows.”-
{g}% = that£r;§~;§:a;:iii:%?TAg3¢ pay {R3.3500/- towards martgage
arhéésrft 317:? VRé,’2$4G53/€.V”iO:i’I’V8fdS the value of improvements)
_ ism mm §)nV:::5’b«e§i»ar§=§-“‘1:f7e 24″‘ day ofApn’1, 1996 or any later
sf upio s£?i’§ic.P.z._.iir>:e the payment may be extended by {he
decree was chailenged by the defendant in
proceedings with an appfication for extension of time flto deposit the
OM: fig/;,.Qxx Q
aforesaié staiaci amofint. The Triai Caurt has ~
appiication. The plaintiffs se-med have gm gne appi%c§ii¢n”9}it’b§n
the gserioci of limitation as provided undcér Ariicié «sic; :Lériii’§é£°£%’;;r¥*
Act. The was Court had no jufiadictipn :5 ‘ekiend t:1[e’:::–n.eVVVm§>:e%
parficuiariy when the appiicaticn was after a” éfiyears.
5. The Eearneé trial hafihe decision of
Supreme cam in4_§;he,_ cm””o«:IL’g34 3113. “~— Redemption of mortgage -~
Preiiminary –. Agapficaifcah for final deciee by mortgagee with
– V. fedemptiim V1a_;§o.::nf – dismfssai of; far nompmsecutibn
‘ aha’. afkifiadfaisvaf cf deposited amount — Per since the expfanation of
z€#as_V?;ot .sa§sfactory, domestic enquiry proceedings
were ‘ir$?iiatéd”j:_:réa¥es no hair is entertain secorxi appiicaiizzr: —
V . Hmvéizw of fifing 0:’ inabpenderzt redempfian suit by
.. , 1 ‘ ‘ . __ §zqngag¢,,__éoufi came? pmcaed further wifi’: second application.
6. This court in the case of Krishnagi Moreshwar Joshi Vs.
‘4″‘.é;hHe1katram Sadashiv Patii ané {fibers reported in 1998(2) i-(LJ 290
has hem under: {N
In the circumstances, the cm: Revision_-‘§V.lé5§éi§tiV<5fi—E2…
dismissed. Office is directed to send haqkjhe rec_cir'ds".~–.:: .