Smt. Jyothi Gajjar vs Smt. K R Vijayalakshmi on 13 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jyothi Gajjar vs Smt. K R Vijayalakshmi on 13 September, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 Bangal0;re -- 560 020



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--, 

(By Sri' \/.':3,%Shetta--r','-- AC3---v_.)" 


._ I _D--/_o.L.atei  K.R.3ayamma
'  Aged _a'b_out V'7.6}~yea rs
~.No..,39 "Ja~,"

12?" Blocks',--'Ground Floor
Kumasfa Park Extension


‘(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”*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;’ec_Atioils to I.A.2, the Trial Court being

convinced””ti}:at~, 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.


,. 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


‘. 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.

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’ the petitioner, upon a xerox
copy” being piaced on record.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *