Dismissed

Lydia Priyadarshini v. Sri. Balakrishna G

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2024WP/11816/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 227 challenged an Executing Court order enforcing a decree in O.S.No.6192/2018 requiring the petitioner to vacate suit property within a specified time. The court found no error, noting the decree had attained finality and was only being enforced.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed and pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Lydia Priyadarshini Vs Sri. Balakrishna G — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22647 WP No. 11816 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.11816 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LYDIA PRIYADARSHINI

¶8

D/O. MRS. JULIA PERMALINK WILFRED AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.FF1 KGS COMFORTS-41, 1ST MAIN ROAD KATHRIGUPPE BANASHANKARI STAGE 3 BENGALURU-560 085.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI BALAKRISHNA G. S/O K. GOVINDA SWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.29/A 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS RANGAPPA LAYOUT BHUVANESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU-560 085.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:22647 WP No. 11816 of 2024

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASH THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.2 IN EX.NO.945/2023 DATED 06.04.2024 PASSED BY THE XX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-32) AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND SET ASIDE THE SAME, ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The impugned order dated 06.04.2024 is passed by

¶22

the Executing Court to implement a decree passed in O.S.No.6192/2018, wherein the petitioner has been asked to vacate the suit schedule property within a specified time. As the time had already elapsed, the impugned order has been passed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of the arguments is unable to point out any error in the impugned order. Admittedly, the decree passed in

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:22647 WP No. 11816 of 2024

¶25

¶26

O.S.No.6192/2018 has attained finality and the impugned

¶27

order is passed only to enforce the same.

¶28

As there is no error in the order passed by the Executing Court, the writ petition is hereby dismissed .

¶29

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand

¶30

disposed of.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Lydia Priyadarshini v. Sri. Balakrishna G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lydia Priyadarshini v. Sri. Balakrishna G

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

Mr T Dejappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bangalore Development Authority (Bda)

Sri. Sarovar Badrinath Vs the State of Karnataka

Surya @ Suryaprasad Vs K Palachandra

Vasathi Avante Apartment Owners Vs M/S Anu Builders and Developers

Abdul Khader Jeelan Vs Mr. Osman Harun Hussain