Disposed

Sri S v. Revanaradhya v Sri K Ramachandrappa

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2023WP/20959/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an interim stay order in a mortgage redemption suit. Pending the final hearing on merits of the underlying appeal, the Court directed the Appellate Court to dispose of the matter within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

The Appellate Court is directed to consider the appeal on its merit and dispose of it within 45 days.

Sri S v Revanaradhya Vs Sri K Ramachandrappa — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27448 WP No. 20959 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20959 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI S V REVANARADHYA S/O LATE SAVANURVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.1970, RING ROAD, NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT,

¶9

DAVANAGERE 577001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHEKARAPPA, ADV. FOR

¶12

SRI HARISH H V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI K. RAMACHANDRAPPA

¶15

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

S/O HANUMANTHAPPAKALADGI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.740, 4 WARD. 6TH DIVISION, SAVANUR BUILDING, MANDIPET, DAVANAGERE 577001.

¶17

SRI H K SURESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPAKALADGI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.740, 4TH WARD, 6TH DIVISION, SAVANUR BUILDING, MANDIPET, DAVANAGERE 577001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH K. S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:27448 WP No. 20959 of 2022

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 26.07.2022, IN R.A.NO.55/2021, PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, WHICH IS EXTENDED TILL FURTHER ORDERS ON 23.08.2022, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 26.07.2022 passed in R.A.No.55/2021 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere. The Appellate Court has granted interim order dated 11.07.2022 staying the operation and execution of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.448/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere.

¶26

Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.448/2013 before the Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere, seeking prayer for redemption of mortgage and damages. The

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27448 WP No. 20959 of 2022

¶28

said suit came to be decreed in part vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2021 by holding that the plaintiff is entitled for redemption to redeem the mortgaged property and further held that the plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.12,000/- per month from 02.05.2013 till vacating the suit schedule property by the respondents herein. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2021, the respondents herein filed appeal, which was numbered as R.A.No.55/2021 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Davanagere. In the said proceedings, the Appellate Court vide order dated 26.07.2022 has allowed the I.A. filed by the respondents herein under Order 41 Rule 5 R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking an order of stay of the operation and execution of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.448/2013. The said interim order was being extended from time to time. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court considering the facts and circumstances,

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:27448 WP No. 20959 of 2022

¶31

evidence on record has decreed the suit in

¶32

O.S.No.448/2013. Being aggrieved by the same the respondents herein have filed an appeal. In the said appeal, the respondents herein have filed an I.A. under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC seeking stay of the judgment and

¶33

decree passed in O.S.No.448/2013. The Appellate Court without considering the mandate contained in Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, has proceeded to stay the judgment and decree without directing the respondents herein to furnish the security. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has

¶34

committed grave error in not directing the respondents herein to pay the rent/damages during the pendency of the appeal. Hence he seeks to allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to pay rent/damages as per the decree dated 15.09.2021.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order of the Appellate Court and submits that on considering the material on record, evidence and averments of the application, the appellate

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:27448 WP No. 20959 of 2022

¶37

Court has rightly considered the I.A. and granted interim relief in favour of the respondents , which does not call for interference in the present appeal.

¶38

At this stage, learned counsel for the parties submit that the appeal is set down for final hearing today and they would go on with the matter on its merit. It is jointly

¶39

submitted that they would not take unnecessary adjournment and they would conclude the arguments within reasonable time. In view of the said submission, it would be appropriate to direct the Appellate Court to hear the appeal on its merit after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties. In view of the aforesaid submission it would not be necessary to consider the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order in this writ petition, hence I proceed to pass the following :

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The Appellate Court is directed to consider R.A.No.55/2021 on its merit and in accordance with law

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:27448 WP No. 20959 of 2022

¶43

¶44

after providing sufficient opportunity to the parties to the proceeding and the appeal shall be disposed of within a

¶45

period of 45 days from today.

¶46

With the above direction the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶47

No order as to costs.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

NG CT:DNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri S v. Revanaradhya v Sri K Ramachandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S v. Revanaradhya v Sri K Ramachandrappa

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

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Lava Kusha Transport Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. Y.N. Jayanna Vs the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Ssb Socio Spiritual Foundation Vs Sri Laxmana

Sri. Naveen. R Vs Sri. Rohan Steve Salian

Sri. Murthy K R Vs Smt. Rajeshwari