__ 1 __
in 11-13 HIGH COURT or KA.R!lATAKA AT nmmmnm
mrrma -rt-as 1-rm 1.7m am as pmmmmg
swans J 'V 'V
mm Hoarnw M'R.JUS'!'ICE 3.3. zgfiig V '
Wm? PET'ITIGH No.;45§gj}I5VgGG8"'*!G£E~§$g:_'
Sfmkash,
S] 0 S.Subbarao,
Aged about 45 years,
Girish Cushion Works,
Bharathi Street, _
SringeriToW;1, V ' "
Chfiunagalur Distz:ict._ _ - ' PETITIOHER
(By Sri
AND: .... _
1. H.s.Nagabushan[;*Rac, 1-
8/0 Subba Rae,' '
Aged ahdut 558 years, "
R/0' .BVharat'i'.i_ St:>c:':t,
Sritggcxi. '
I ¥{11mar1',
_ G' H.'S,P§'agab1;ushan Race,
" éizdut
R10 Bharafitri' Street,
SI'i11g€:i_*i.. 2 REEFGNDEHTB
, V V' .. _ 'Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 av, 22'? of flat:
é V~Cvonsti'R¢1*£io11 of India praying to quash the enfixe proceedings in
" _E::éCui_'$o11 No.7/2003 on the file of the Civil Judga: (Jr.Dn.},
'~««J1V£FC., Sritzgcri, at Anncxure~--G dated 04.11.2008 and
».c;}1_:-;sequent1y to pass order till disposal of comprehensive suit in
"gthc mattm' of ownczship at' property the deems cannot be put
.. .~ into exefrufinn.
...2...
This Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day,
tmownmmmmmmmmy
ORDER
1. The challenge in this Writ petition is to
04,1 1.2003 passed by the Executing i11_.E:iecii1E§£$i1~:l?etitioIi” .
No.7] 2003. The Execution Petition decreeihoiciatte
– respoI1de11ts–1 and 2 I:1e:eiriv’é;ee_1_(ingi’i’oj’.:t1ie
obtained in O.S.No.27/2000 for ejectmenttifor ifecovezy of
rent. A i 3 L 2
2. The suit wag; decxeedfon appeal filed
against the saitzi and -‘decree before this Court has
been dismissed; and decree passed by the Court
belovcpitlélse. becoiieepiiiinai. In the execution proceedings, the
in who is admittedly a. tenant in occupation of the
received notice filed objections contending
_in,teré;%ia the decree holders were not the owners of the
ietziltiingi as such they were not entitled to receive the rent
possession of the property. He contended that the
=.C}Q7’-;’€{‘I1I]1€I1t of Karnataka had notified }:1im to pay arnears of
«tezitals in respect of the very property. Objection was also
raised stating that in the absence of any evidence by the decree
.. 3 ….
holders in the execution pmeeedings, the notice of arrest could
not have been issued.
3. The Executing Court having considered
raised has rejected the objections and passed””‘tj3.ev
order. Aggieved by the same, the present writ
4. I have heard the learned c_ounseI_ forvthevtpettfioeer ;
perused the materials on Iecoxvdi’ uvtfigeti by the
learned ceunsel for the the State thvernzeent
has initiated proceeding$A.i.I1,:t thVe per Am1exures–A
and B, 1zrheIei112__”it’Ej;:=ts the rents payable
in respect of treafing the properties as
Muzrai atte directions to the Revenue
Authorities entries in respect of the shop
premises in qiiestion’~along”‘\}vith other premises is issued by the
V’ ‘-Statee.j{}o’gem1nent.”V ‘I*fe”sVubmits that in View of this development
nmeeedmgs cannot he proceeded with and the
not justrified in passing the ixnpuwed order
‘rejecting the objections filed.
V’ . _ H contention of the petitioner if accepted will nullify the
of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court as
e
.. 4 …
amrmed in appeal by this Court. Such a contention cannot be
accepted. The Trial Court was light and justified in rejecting
the objections raised. I do not find any error a§3pa1f€Ii:f:”-(_} ]Z}VVfh€
{ace of the record or error of jurisdiction 1’i:_I_.*
adopted by the Court below in Iejectmgfihe 1
the petitioner. Petitioner is ‘:l’.}f1?3 };5v.id.giT;;’.f€’1:Il.t .
and decree passed which hasV’e.t€£_ijneei’-fiiiality; “?he.,’o1;jection.sL’
now raised are only intended to the ms.tter hang ori
to the possession.
Therefore, pe.titionhei31g’devoic_1 or merits is dismissed.
.... " Sd I ,_4_._,.i Judge