Smt Anandamma v. Sri M Prithviraj
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed part of a writ petition, granting the petitioners an extension to vacate premises until 31.12.2022. The court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, despite a binding Lok Adalath award setting an earlier deadline, mandating rent deposit as a condition.
What did the court decide?
Extension of time to vacate premises until 31.12.2022; deposit of rent arrears; undertaking to pay future rent on time.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8958/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
- SMT ANANDAMMA W/O LATE AMRUTH KUMAR AGED 64 YEARS,
- SRI.JAGANNATH AMRUTH KUMAR S/O LATE AMRUTH KUMAR AGED 42 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. H-18 BRUNDAVANA, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 021.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DAYANAND HIREMATH., ADVOCATE)
AND :
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to grant an extension of time for vacating premises despite a Lok Adalath award being deemed a decree.
Whether the pandemic-related difficulties justify an enlargement of time under Section 151 CPC when the underlying dispute is settled.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Anandamma
- petitioner
Jagannath Amruth Kumar
- respondent
M Prithviraj
- respondent
M. Jaikishan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/8958/2021
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court