'ma?
Bangal0;re -- 560 020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN_cI.A_I-_.oRE
DATED THIS THE I3" DAY OF sEPTEMB.E§_}-1,"2O;;.Qf'
BEFORE'
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.:=.\(Ehi-Ué(31O'4PA_i.A jGOwj'oA'I=::Va%:' *
WRIT PETITION NO'.25_V24s'/2IO"1oV(Or§i?;fIIc;V)H I
BETWEEN: it A it A' V
Smt.Jyothi Gajjar _ ,
W/o.Jaswanth Gajjar
Aged 65 years, . '
R/o.No.39, 1i29"aBloci{:: I
Ground FlOO._r 55>' '
Kumara--~Pa'r'%. E>&*t>.ensiO.n
Bangalore ?#<5--6Q 0.20--,
I = _ PETITIONER
(By Sri' \/.':3,%Shetta--r','-- AC3---v_.)"
_
ASmt.i<.;iF?..Vi3AayalakshmI
._ I _D--/_o.L.atei K.R.3ayamma
' Aged _a'b_out V'7.6}~yea rs
~.No..,39 "Ja~,.r.ai:angam"
12?" Blocks',--'Ground Floor
Kumasfa Park Extension
RESPONDENT
‘(B30/??Sr: Paras 3am, Adv.)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
it “of the Constitution Of India praying to quash the order
dated 08.06.2010 passed on LA No.11 in
o.s.No.26526/2009 passed by the 26″‘ Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge at Mayohall, Bangalore produ.ceri_ at
Annexure -~ E; call for the records if necessary”.ai”rdf.gr*ant
cost to the petitioner herein. ” r.
This petition coming on for preliminary:fhe:ari:ng_in;’B5
group, this day the Court made yr.-‘n’-:-2 folilov-ring.’ ._ V ~
0 R P
Defendant is the peti1tiio:ner_ is the
plaintiff. The suit onefor decree of
ejectment after fhough written
statement w*a’s”~§ii1ed, ithegpiivéinitiff filevd…T:.A.2 under 0.12 R.6
CPC basedwon the admissions in the
pleading’. «. Despvi’t’e;o.bj’ec_Atioils to I.A.2, the Trial Court being
convinced””ti}:at~,..in of the admissions in the written
statement gwithffregarvd to the co-ownership and termination
has allowed I.A.2 and directed the
‘petitioner/Etieffendant to vacate the premises within 3
months-from the date of the order. Regarding the claim
vfo_r:f:nesne profits, it has observed that there can be an
V”‘i…_flvflenquiry under 0.20 12.12 CPC. Said order has been
questioned in this writ petition.
ks,»
,. I’
2. This Court has granted an interim order of
the impugned order and the petitioner cont_in”u’es..’_’t.o:”in
occupation of the suit premises.
3. Sri Paras Jain, iearned °<;ou'n_s"ei ap'p.ear,in.g"forthe
respondent fiied statement*«..,,of~._,objections,1anwdapcontended
that, the writ petition is,~rro–t"_:'mai.ntain'ab'ie~-and if the
petitioner is aggrieve'd,_._"hasfto by fiiing an
appeai. Learned._counse'i_:'V:su.brrtitsVtyhat, though the order
has 'I…VA'..2,flit'"is~–a'£judgment in the suit and
the samecanv: by fiiing an appeal under 8.96
CPC.
‘. l.;e~a_rnedvcounsei is right in making the submission
has been ailowed, the impugned order
si–t4ouidv’hau’e been drawn as judgment and not an order.
fhough: the Triai Court has not directed to draw the
A’ –..V’o’er:uree, the drawing of the decree being a ministeriai act,
V. ,…i/vouid follow in terms of the impugned order/judgment.
Hence, the writ petition is nogmaintainabie.
/:7
In the result, writ petition stands
reserving liberty to the petitioner to
impugned order/judgment by fiii’n’g-an ti’mef
spent from the date of filing of pletifion,
shall stand excluded if anV>a.p’piicatiAo’n.__seey|§i’ng””~–co’n’donationV
of delay is filed along appeal. niemo. The
impugned order is not the appeal is filed
and any order’ is Vorytjap till 20.10.2010,
WhiChe\/34′”Vd’3’té’::ii:,-€90I’!-mfg V it ‘
return the certified copy of the
impugned’ orderVf’o’rrhyii*i.t’hV.to the petitioner, upon a xerox
copy” being piaced on record.
.Saf%§
Itidge
=*.<,53"'.–"'"
