High Court Karnataka High Court

Vimal Jugaraj Jain vs Murarsa Tuljansa Habib on 27 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Vimal Jugaraj Jain vs Murarsa Tuljansa Habib on 27 June, 2008
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE'; may: <:.ou'm"' 0? KARNA'}'Al{A A'? BA€'€G2%_LORE
Dféltfiftd thf: 271*' day of June 2008 V "
:BEFORE: A ____A
THE HON'BLE,', l\£EE2.JUS'I"IC3E ; v.i5AGAN§$§_§s1%§:T;§&é  "
REGULAR SEECCDND APPEAL. 34¢. 1146Q'*f7.;:¢j{;'3,'_' 

BETWEEN 2

1. Viiznal Juga;t'a_§ Jain,
skgesd about 3 1 years,  _
Occ: Busin.3s$, RIO H1;hEi..A  "

2. Sanjay Jugaraj  "  ;   
Agevd 33 years, R[§_)"£~iLz?;31i. L 

3. Ragnesh a V' 
Ageg:?.3Es j;%:a;s,= L

QCC': Bgisiziesfi,»R]L{;:,H'<:.i§3:§i.  

:5"

 Ra1jeI19;ii€31_§§3i11,
"*%'\g*i~'=<?1- 39   " ..
Gs:;<:<§": ._Busi1::ess, R / :3 Hubli.

 '  Bhavarlal Jain,
Agiitd 4;:1Vyea1"s,
(l'Cfi:4:'..--B113§11fi$S, R} 0 Hubli.

 ?. " ,1-wa Vijay Biaavaflai Jain,

Agcci 41 years,
QCC: Business, F2/<3 Hubli.

'E8. B.Is/£.C)swa} Stores,

xtpmsented by Rajendra Jain,
Hubii.

Ail are 1",! 0 Javafisaai, H11b1i~122.
...£'sppel1a11ts

{ 83: Sri Sadiq §'§.G0(3€h'~?ala, 15§{§V(X',8.t€' )



IN-J

ANS:

L

pi

_ C"."P.C;._ é1gz3Einst $3.16 judgmelit and dacme dated 1.452008
 A paS$£:;d :'i:1, R.A.N<}. 6312007 on the file of the I Add}. Civi}
" : V§Ti{1?t$.ge (SI'aB13t)_3 Hubli, dismissing the appeai flied againsst the
 'j'ii<i:gmf:11f, and riscree datad 122.1300? passeé in O,S.N0.
-- 466j2()05 can the file Of the if Add}. Civil Jlmge [Jr.Dn.) 5.; {H

_  :;,_  _ 
 W; O ?'§.ie;mic}';a11<i 
';_Ag::::' .'i§V8V}'<:ja'r§g §:)(?Q72."H011S€}'.1O1d Wark.

Murarsa Tuljansa Habih,
Age: 81 years, Occ: Business,
R] 0 New Javaii "Bazaar,
¥~E11b}i"22.

Motibai,
W] 0 Manikchanad Jain,

Age: .39 years, Occ: Housetviié; ~

1?] 0 Hubli.

Hirachand Bhavarlal $22531,
Age:-.: 88 years, 000: Busiiistss.

Smt. Shanfibai,
W] 0 Pazafimal Jain,

Agaz :36 years, Oécé:  _ 

rm' to   Saal,

_ _ Hub1i--2i2.. _ 

JMFCE, Hubli.

This appeal coming on R31" acimis-$i<:31:: this ciay, the

Court dezliverad the following :

 Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, Advccate for (:1 9- 1. )

'  Rt;;~Tgj;§11§.¥fi"VSeco11€1 Appeal filed under Section 1130 of the

... Respondents

3

J{,}’I§€.’r§’v’EENT

E-leard itha Eaamzfid counsei for the . “Fhe:

911}? point i11v(3lved in this apptsal is with

9:’ time far the appellants 15:} ‘A§*.a’11 of the suit pr€:I_ni;:3_es E0 }3§8ifLfifif.

2. The submission 01″ ‘fi1i1%”}€:§aI’II{€§{1v.VVVf0I’ 1:316
appeliants is that §i%,%:'<:..b€ '§§A'Aai%.t€d :9 the
appveilarxts a:1§ i this 'AAfi:i1%'.3'-V*'1ear£1€d counsel
for R-1 fhe trial court. hack
grafited–. fhe suit is of the yeai' 2085.

3. Eiéviiég ” sublnissions made as abeve

aiiiiii <;;t:§1ei4"'e"3.s;.1;3:.€t:::ts of the case being not in dispute

' .bt3~t;g;ra3;é'I1 §3art,ies, in View of this: request Illadfi by tile

" "u{ii<;1¥;if£':1Vs€} £01' the apgeliaizts and taking note of £1316

pe;ris:n;i*«pi'V}1:11i£atio:1, I am 3f the vicw that 1116 app<_=:}.3ants

be g'am:<:x:£ time tili the and of December 2009 to

%(if31iV€I' vacant possession of the suit ptrernises ts R~£

anti subject to thizii" paying I'eI1tS 1'eg'uia3:'iy'.

4. Hence, the foiiowing order is passed:

Er

«

1?;

The appaiiants are graxitsd tima till 3 . to

vacaiit: 1:116 suit premigess arld. deiiver “E5 I’

and t:.h<-:3,-* shall continue {:0 pa};-* ":4e:;ts Z§.f6g3;11g3§}'§}f '

Vacate E116 suit premisfis. : A11 $11321 E15:

givrsn by the appaliants wifilrifi
three weeks from tlué 'd'ate_«'c9af dvfdel".
The appeal is dispéseii EEITHS;

Salt
‘Judge