1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG;-gmRE
SATED THIS THE 9th my 0? JUNE 209$ »u
BEFORE
THE HONBLE Dr. JUS'I'ICE..K: »B}-iAI$'i'.IV"I'~§iv:£"\"'€--§*?kf1"§V§"£i4I:,;€§. k
REGULAR FXRST APPEA1L:4No;_322/2009V:(RéSi ~.._"
8:. MISC. cIi?1_L-.;4o.72?ii2oo§"L ' % V'
BETWEEN: F' . .
Sri.B.N .Surcsh1«n1mar, . » _ : ;
S]o.late B.R.NarayaI1 Shetty; V
Aged about 60 years, V . '- _ v_ &
Proprietor, M] s,S:'i._I{anx1§ka§T:§::der§;~ VV
A I3'I"()}t3I'ifit0I'S11;i}:}V , '
No.7, Ground I?'i€,?'0.I';""
Mysom Road _ _
NewTharag§,1pi:t, _ '
Bangaiorc--56{} (302. ...APPELLANT
. '(By f_[}ayaiiéi11r.1a,.Adv.}
1..'--S:iV.%P.fiki;i2agh:£ifam,
a%;u:>uf.:41 years,
' ~ . Sri. P.M fi'Nanda Kumar,
' , A' Aggd about 36 years,
_V sons of
% Pjiflalleshaiah Gupta,
a.No.7, Raghunamiau,
Rangarao Road, Shankarapuram,
Baxxgaiorefiéfi 004. .. , RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.D.R.P.Babu, Adv. for R~i 82; 2)
N:
This R.F.A. is filed under Section 96 of CPC “against the
Judgment 85 Decree dt.i0.0’2.20{)9 passed in O.S.Ne;~8V{>9’i;lv2O05 on
the file of the xx Add]. City Civil 8:; Sessions _..1u,<1»g;':', ~ 'Bangalore,
decree-ing the suit for ejectxuent and damages. 1 " A
This Misc. Civil No.7271/2009 Wise" filed :1;'s.v–1Se1, £5: c.tv,e,_
to dispense with the pmduction of idecfiée O.;.'S..N¢._8O9'i/2003.93'.
the file of the XX Add}. City Civil 85 Sessions' J1:.clge,_ 'Bai;ga_ld:1e; in
ends ofjustice.
These cases coming on V.adn1.vi.ssien,: the ‘Court
delivezeci the foIIowing:– ”
flDGte1I§_i;£_~?1’*-._
The appeflant/ciefend§ti1tVvin__{l)2005 on the file ofXX
Addifional city5i:;v:;:’§t;u._sl§;e.5:. Bangalore city, is before this Court
unéer Seeiiprl 96 at for setting aside the Judgment and
Decree ‘dated nlasie in the suit.
» » Tlfhe and respondents anti their counsel are present
Went
counsel for the appellant, after addressing
W H ” nrgnnaents “at length, efiers that the appellant is ready anal willing to»
e.§a¢au~A”the suit schedule pmmiees an or before 31” May 2910 and
‘veflers to pay éanzages at the rate of Rs.7,00(}/ — per month with efieet
“Vfmm 01.86.2009 till he vacates the premises, i..e., an or before
31.05.2010.
4. Learned counsel for the respo11de1::ts__-e{2’¥5i1ii1;§~;%;’1$ft_v the
respondents have alxeady sufi’ered_ ortief ” =
undergoiiig untold misery and 4.:
and he submits that three m(}Izt:t1S«.j;ime”3;z1.”iy” be vacate}. the
suit scheduic premises.
5. Since the appei3QaVn}t .:§i1–..business in the suit
schedule pzemi§3e5ae.:Va:;d ifie ‘gegeongibie oifer, it would meet
the ends of appeal as submitted by the
iea1’uedVe6ii1xseI;;f0f :i1;e V V
6. is diseased ofi” granting time ‘£10 the
ap§>e41§,a’111§eA.to v§9a:c:aj:e’ae:1d.’Vdeiiver vacant possession of the suit schedule
V. bef01V’e”§«1.{)S.2G 10 subject to the foliewing conditions:
«. Vi) shall pay damages in a sum of Rs.7,{10{)/ —
” ‘ month with effect from 01.06.2009;
” s The damages shall be paid during the cunent month on
or before 10″‘;
iii) The appeiiant shalil pay damages regularly and in the
event cf not paying damages for two consecutive months,
the zespondents shall be at iibeny to execute the eiecree
even before expiry of the tieae granted. by this Court;
:
5
:L\wwwW__W_/ …. ..
biivf’ M”
£13:
iv) The appellant shall vacate and deliver
of the suit schedule property on
Without driving the msponriéfits ‘tn £2-xe<;ut:t§" décrfic;
v) The respondents of
Rs.5G,O()0/ » to the apjsellani xzefhiicj vaéant
possessivrm of tlgfs: suitAsn1V§’edu%::u
vi) The appellant afiz: cf undertaking to the
above efiegt within tdday.
No costéf 1: .
VAilxnp:1 g1:1.;;d Jtsdglnent and Award are modified.
in vievs{‘cj:f me Vdi.s;5osa1},:r the appcai, Misc. Civil NOJ727 1/ 2009
‘”fr3;’ nfi¥f”w$1_1;_vive for consideration and the same is
accerdxugly, off.
Sdl *~
Judge