Dismissed

Mr. Kishore Kumar S N v. Mr. Narasimha Prasad T K

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024CRP/122/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka in Civil Revision Petition No. 122 of 2024 rejected petitioner's challenge against an order directing deposit of Rs.2,00,000 towards arrears of rent. Court held financial inability or injunction against petitioner's account cannot impede decree execution.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the execution order was dismissed and the execution order was upheld.

Mr. Kishore Kumar S N Vs Mr. Narasimha Prasad T K — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9056 CRP No. 122 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 122 OF 2024 (EX)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. KISHORE KUMAR S.N. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT: NO.175, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 4^TH PHASE, 707 SFS HOUSES, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064 MOBILE: +91-9742783646 EMAIL: [email protected]

¶9

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SR: KISHORE KUMAR .S.N., PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MR. NARASIMHA PRASAD T.K. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT: NO.803, D GULMOHAR BLOCK, SRI RAM SUHANA APARTMENTS, NAGENAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 064, MOBILE: +91-9980494398

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2024 IN EX.NO.1629/2023 ON THE FILE OF LXIX ACC AND SJ, BENGALURU., DISPOSED OFF THE IAS FILED BY THE BOTH DECREE HOLDER AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR AND DIRECTIONS STATED THEREIN.

¶15

THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9056 CRP No. 122 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present petition is filed challenging an order passed by the Executing Court by which the Judgment Debtor has been directed to deposit Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) within one month from today, failing which, the decree holder would be at liberty to take possession of the scheduled property through the process of the court.

¶19

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has suffered a decree of ejectment and said decree is the subject matter of challenge in RFA. No.232 of 2024. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not obtained an interim order in RFA. No.232 of 2024, and as a consequence, there is no impediment for the execution of the decree.

¶20

The trial court has found that the petitioner was due a sum of Rs.2,49,658/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) towards arrears of rent as on the date of filing of the execution

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9056 CRP No. 122 of 2024

¶22

petition and the Trial Court has graciously granted a month's time to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), failing which the decree holder is given liberty to seek possession through the process of the Court.

¶23

The petitioner, appearing in person, contends that he is ready to deposit said sum of Rs. 2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Only), but is prevented from doing so by virtue of an injunction said to have been granted at the instance of his wife in C.Misc. No. 90 of 2015. He submits that the bank in which he holds an account is ready to issue a demand draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), and he would be ready to deposit said demand draft to comply with said order, if the Bank is directed to issue a demand draft.

¶24

If there is an order restraining the operation of the accounts granted against the petitioner at the instance of his wife, that cannot be a ground to entitle the petitioner to seek for postponement of the payment of the

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:9056 CRP No. 122 of 2024

¶26

¶27

money that is due under the decree. The problems that the petitioner has with his finances or with his wife, which causes an impediment to pay the amount, cannot be a reason for denial of the execution of the decree, which the landlord has obtained after a long struggle. I am therefore of the view that there is no justification in interfering with

¶28

the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶29

Hence, this Petition is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Mr. Kishore Kumar S N v. Mr. Narasimha Prasad T K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kishore Kumar S N v. Mr. Narasimha Prasad T K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. a. Thomas Vs Ganeshwar. S. L.

Sri. R. Rajagopal Vs Smt. Rathnamma

Sri Puttachari Vs State of Karnataka

G K Prasanna Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Sri K Hanumantharayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.S. Krishnappa Vs the Commissioner