Appeal against decree on suit for possession and rent dismissed as infructuous since respondents had taken possession of premises in execution of the impugned decree.
Appeal dismissed as infructuous because the decree had been executed and respondents were in possession.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5257/2012 (POSS. & AR)
BETWEEN:
VASANT S/O. LAXMANSING KILLEDAR AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: TYPING R/O. KILLEDAR BUILDING, SUBHAS ROAD, OPP. BUS STAND, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD 580 001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATISH S RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
W/O. BAKATLAL UPADHYAYA AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. UPADHYAYA SWEETS, NEAR OLD BUS STAND DHARWAD 580 001.
S/O. BAKATLAL UPADHYAYA AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. UPADHAYA SWEETS, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, DHARWAD 580 001.
2
1C. SMT.GAYATRI W/O. SURESH TIWARI AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. C/O. KANTABAI W/O. BAKATLAL UPADHYAYA UPADHYAYA SWEETS, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, DHARWAD 580 001.
1D. SMT. VANDANA W/O. SRIRAM VYAS AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. C/O. SMT. KANTABAIL W/O. BAKATLAL UPADHYAYA , UPADHYAYA SWEETS, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, DHARWAD 580 001.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR C/R1(A-D)]
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD:22.11.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:27.06.2009 PASSED IN OS. NO.107/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & PRL. J.M.F.C. DHARWAD, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR POSSESSION & ARREARS OF RENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
When the learned counsel for the respondents started his arguments, he submitted that, in pursuance of the decree passed by the Court below, Execution Petition was filed and now the respondents have taken possession of the suit premises and hence the appeal has become infructuous.
When it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said judgment and decree which has been challenged before this Court has been executed and nothing is to be adjudicated further, the appeal has become infructuous.
Hence the appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
gab
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vasant S/O. Laxmansing Killedar
Bankatlal S/O. Krishnanlal Upadhyaya (deceased) by his LRS
Smt. Kantabai
Shri. Kedar S/O. Bakatlal Upadhyaya
Smt. Gayatri W/O. Suresh Tiwari
Smt. Vandana W/O. Sriram Vyas
B.A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
