km'.
{N THE H18?! CQURT op' KARNATAKA AT BANG5:;<j»IgVE
DATED THIS THE 3TH DAY OF APRIL'_;1'<'Zt(;J'?Ǥ?%VV':: u %
EEFORE 'L V " V 1% T
THE H{)N'BLE MR.JL?£%I;1"C'€EBV.S._ P;Aff.z L --
WRIT PETITION No§9.3};'1.:2oo§2."_~A f ' V %
Clw. vim No,14a33;g0o-is ;<}M--'%«Nagamj
S; 0"; jR,?-'".:}. Rangapjpa
_Hi{1d.i1, Majer
.. 'R10. Chmnxajpczt
Ségar Town - S7? 401
RR. Gopaiakrishna
S/o. RS. Rangappa
Hixzdu, Major
R] (.2. C§1mmajpc£
Sagar Tmvn - 57'? 41}?
3. R. Dattatreya
S,'{..:. RS. Raiigappa
1*»)
Hindu, Major
R] 0. Chamrajpct
Sagazr '1'ow1:1 -- 5?'? 40 1
4. R.R. Ramachandra
S/0. RS. Rangappa
Hindu, Major
R10. United Kingdom
Rep. by PQA Hoklcr
R. Gop.'--1Iak'rishna
8,10. RS. Rangappa : '
(255 respondent)
Sagar Town -- 377 401 " ' .V .. VRE§3P*ONvDVE?»£TS
"'{;if;1MM(.1§fi:.1i'é'-£t3lI;}'I'i?§E <:.Asx:;::;)
(By Sri. H.S. Sumshgppa' R1-31"
T236313 _\%i»:ti_f Ii%T;1i1io3;s._aIe' fi.ic;i *t1ndcr Articles 226 and
227 of the C«t3:2.$i:itutiQn _of«..India,. praying to quash the order
passed iby-.ti1c Ra":-*.z1<:*.dT Judge (Jr. 1311.} Sagas", dated
21.03.2069 3-_3a3st:d"0;i1._i.'A.__. E:.X.P. No.1/D5 (A11n--F) and
the order dated 1212;' I 1'V.A2(}fJS »Lpassed rm i.a.S IN F1x.P. Na? /{)5
respectively etc:',;. '
___ T13;ese pefifiofis coming on for hearing, this day
7~ _(I1o31;*t .ma§iic 'the following: -
ORDER
Asv’-. b.o’ti3″‘ these writ pcfitions arise between the same:
” . par.§§:s with regard to the same subject matter, they am
§:’§iE1″ué§i, heard together and disposed of by this comman.
‘ V ” mfier.
%*
3
….v.
*2 Writ petition 310.9341/2009 is directed the
order dated “.21,03.i2009 passed by the executing:.~oo1irr__’i1ij’
petition No.1/2005 on LA. No.12. Pefifioligrivjiéiigroilo
judgment debtor in the exccufionvhiprooeoriirigii.
additionai objections with a Iéqiiést to raéeivé’. some oil
file and decide the €a:~i{~:..V_on méifiioij’ ougipoft of the said
application, the judgmérltiidiebiorl has filed his
affidavit contgnwiirig tliat filed objections in
the matter;’t{srio::,i”‘bii:,’:gilj–§,”3 he came to know about
two the ofoéouting court has no power
to issuo-dolivéry’ tho judgment debtor, hcmx:
he sought file a€i.difion5é2iVobjecfion.
.» 3;” The Ch1.1ri_____br;1oW has dismissod the prayer made
,1′:1vO!x’1]fI£gv’fl1E1f.VA:v’3}{]33.(1}7 objections raised by the petitioner had
boonr and an order was passed and what
mmétmefi was only tho erxecution of the decree, house, there
w2r.:s___ no” provision for permitting the petitioner to raioe
ii iéitidifional objections. The court below has fiuijher made a
“”réfertmco to the interim application {.A.9, which was earlier
J8,
application LA 12 on 17.3. 2999 pezfiiiisoiofi
5
WP. No.14833]?.OG8 challenging the said order. T
there was no scope for ilitn to maintain .
application, on the same ground before the.’ei{eei.t{iig Colutt ” *
again alleging that in View of the appucaeg3’a es i;h¢”p1¥c-;{is_;ons7
of the Kaniataka Rent Act, 3999 (tot-.f3i1io1ft *3§é::;,Apo_;: tlie
executing court had zio :5″ ‘ ttéae order.
Therefore, it is Clear ‘ettettipt. by judgment
debtor by filing the 12 that he is
interested o_IV1§_*._:s;i before the
executing iiimade new is aiready
eonsitlexed No.9341/2009 which has
been dismisseefi. writ petitions cannot be
_V . . .
the order passed on LA5, holding that
petitioner not entitled to contend that the execution
yzoeeediiigs cannot be pursued in View of the agaplication of
-,.ti’3.e tiient Act to Sagara ‘Town, it is contended by the learned
it ._Ci{)¥.iI}SC1 for the petitioner that the Rent Act is made
applicable to Sagara Town with efleet from December 2006
and thexefoxe, as per section 2?’ of the Rent Act, the Cotut
below iost jurisdiction to proceed with the execution
fig/..
pmceedings and to deliver possession to the The
provision contained u/5.2? (I) of the es
under:
“2′?(1}: Protecfion ‘or i’-._ienani{‘[i~:..iA.
eviction: Not\:vit11st23i_2:’.–i;1g 2 ‘A II?-:e
contrary contained in eiiiyxioflier ‘jcon§§t1’act,
no ortier or the zeeéveiy of
possession nf made by the
Court, District Judge. or favour of
the Iagldianrd as previded
._ referred in Section 27 of the
Act to the Before which the suit is filed for
rec;-very or the-_ip?osse::si<3n of any premises. The expression
" and High Court respectively refer to the orders
1 rtohe on the order in appeal or revision, as the
ease may Them is nothing to show that the same can be
neensirued to extent tn the executing court where the
for executing the decree which has othenvise
fnality are pending. in the absence of any
indication in the prevision that the protection. conferred
11/327 of the Rent Act in the tenants applies even to the
exeeufion proceedings, such a C(3I1StI'l.1C1Li€).¥1 is impermissible.
fir
petitiomr in violating the Court order and the
given,
11. In View of the above, these writ f
dcveid Gf mcriis, deserve to be
A<:'<:-ordimly, both the writ pet:-;fi§n.;§'e.m_ dismissed.
Cs