Allowed

Yashoda S Arumugham v. Dr Pushpalatha K N

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2022WP/4306/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment entertains a writ petition filed by legal representatives of a judgment debtor against a delivery warrant issued in an execution petition. The High Court allows the petition, suspending the warrant and directing the petitioners to deposit a sum before the Execution Court, failing which the warrant will be enforced.

What did the court decide?

Delivery warrant suspended; petitioners directed to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- before Execution Court; trial court directed to complete proceedings within six months.

Yashoda S Arumugham Vs Dr Pushpalatha K N — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4306 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

YASHODA S. ARUMUGHAM

¶8

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S

¶9

1(a). DR. S. ARUMUGHAM

¶10

S/O LATE NITYANANDA AIYER

¶11

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS NO.878, 13^TH MAIN,

¶12

VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶13

1(b). DR. SHASHIKANTH A. S/O DR. S. ARUMUGHAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SY. NO.10/1, KORANGARAPADY VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK-574 118.

¶14

1(c). MR. RAVIKANTH A. S/O DR. S. ARUMUGHAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.878, 13^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶15

¶16

1(d). DR. LAKSHMIKANTH A. S/O DR. S. ARUMUGHAM AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.878, 13^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072.

¶17

1(e). DR. SHARADA A. BISWAS S/O DR. S. ARUMUGHAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BISWAS MEDICARE, NEHRUGANJ, ITARSI, MADHYA PRADESH-461 111.

¶18

...PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. G. KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.R. SREENIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

DR. PUSHPALATHA K.N. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O PROF. ACHUTHA RAO R/O NO.1736, ‘SHUBHA PRADHA’, M.C. ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶22

….RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. KESHAVA, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CASE INITITATED IN EXECUTION NO.2897 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND G TO G3; AND ETC.

¶24

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the legal representatives of the original Judgment Debtor in Execution Petition No.2897 of 2014 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 19^th February, 2020, issuing delivery warrant against the legal representatives of Judgment Debtor.

¶28

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the respondent herein has filed Original Suit No.6069 of 2012 before the trial Court, seeking ejectment of defendant and also claiming arrears of rent. The said suit came to be decreed by the trial Court on 30^th June, 2014. The defendant preferred Regular First Appeal No.1567 of 2014 before this Court and in the said appeal, compromise petition has been filed by the parties agreeing that the defendant shall vacate the premises on or before 28^th February, 2017 and in the meantime the defendant died on 17^th January, 2016. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the deceased defendant were brought on

¶29

¶30

record. This Court disposed of the Regular First Appeal in terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the defendant have not vacated the premises and complied with the terms of the compromise petition. Accordingly, the respondent herein has filed Execution Petition No.2897 of 2014 before the trial Court, seeking arrears of rent of Rs.5,66,533/- as well as vacating the premises and handing over the vacant possession. The said Execution Petition was defended by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 19^th February, 2020, issued delivery warrant against Judgment Debtors. The said order is challenged before this Court in the present writ petition.

¶31

I have heard Sri. G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. B.R. Sreenivasa Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. K. Keshava, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

¶32

Sri. G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the

¶33

¶34

Interim Order dated 20^th February, 2020, wherein this Court has stayed the Execution petition for a period of four weeks, subject to the petitioners depositing a sum Rs.2,50,000/- within two weeks from the date of order. He further submits that, due to the financial crisis, Judgment Debtors were not able to comply with the order dated 20^th February, 2020. Further, he submits that, if the reasonable period is granted to the petitioners herein, petitioners shall comply with the judgment and decree dated 30^th June, 2014 passed in Original Suit No.6069 of 2012.

¶35

Per contra, Sri. K. Keshava, learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that since the petitioners herein have not complied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, they are not eligible for equitable relief in the suit. He further contended that the petitioners herein, have not paid the rent since February-2017 till date. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order passed by the Execution Court, issuing delivery warrant is just and proper, which does not call for any interference in this writ petition.

¶36

¶37

In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for parties, I have carefully considered the impugned order passed by the Execution Court as well as the judgment and decree dated 30^th June, 2014 passed in Original Suit No.6069 of 2012. Perusal of the order would indicate that the original Judgment Debtor has suffered a judgment and decree in Original Suit No.6069 of 2012. Thereafter, he preferred Regular First Appeal No.1567 of 2014 before this Court. This Court, disposed of the appeal, in terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties. However, perusal of the writ petition papers would indicate that the Judgment Debtors have not complied with the judgment and decree passed in terms of the compromise petitioner, by this Court. In the meanwhile, the original defendant died on 17^th January, 2016. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased defendant were brought on record. Perusal of the record would further indicate that the trial

¶38

Court in Original Suit No.6069 of 2012 has decreed the suit. However, this Court in Regular First Appeal No.1567 of 2014, modified the judgment and decree and disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Taking

¶39

¶40

into consideration the fact that as per the Execution Petition No.2897 of 2014 (Annexure-A), the Decree Holder has made claim of Rs.5,66,533/-, however, the said aspect has been disputed by the learned Senior Counsel representing petitioners and in that view of the matter, if a reasonable period is granted to the Judgment Debtors to vacate the premises and to pay arrears of rent, if any, the same would meet the ends of justice.. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

i) Writ petition is allowed; ii) Petitioners herein, shall deposit Rs.5,00,000/before the Execution Court on or before 23^rd April, 2022 without fail;

¶43

iii) Parties to the proceedings are permitted to file Memo of calculation regarding arrears of rents, if any, before the Execution Court;

¶44

iv) In the event, if petitioners herein, fail to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- before the Execution Court on or before 23^rd April, 2022, the respondent herein is at liberty to revive this writ petition;

¶45

¶46

v) In view of allowing the writ petition, Delivery warrant, if any, issued by the trial Court is suspended till 23^rd April, 2022 and the trial Court is directed to complete the entire proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

ARK

Yashoda S Arumugham v. Dr Pushpalatha K N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashoda S Arumugham v. Dr Pushpalatha K N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Maligappa @ Malligappa Vs Sri Prakash B D

Lokesha Vs Eregowda

Gokaldas Images Private Limited Vs Aries Agro - Vet Associates (Pvt ) Limited

Sri Venkataramappa Vs Sri P Jaganmohan Reddy

Dr N Ramamurthy Vs Smt Maheshwari

Shivaram @ Shiva Reddy Vs Sri Ashwath Narayana Reddy