A judgment-debtor whose ex parte ejectment decree was under challenge sought stay of execution under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC; the executing court rejected it. The High Court found the petitioner's conduct did not warrant indulgence and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12104 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KIRAN KUMAR S/O B. TIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A B.G. HATTI, NEAR MINI VIDHANSOUDA, ARASIKERE-573103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. SIRADI SAAYINATHA MANDIRA SAAYINATH ROAD, ARISIKERE, REP. GPA HOLDER SRI. B.S. SAYIPRASADA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ARASIKERE-573103 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA NO.4 DATED 07.06.2023 PASSED IN EX NO.36/2022 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ARASIKERE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:49696 WP No. 12104 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC in Ex.No.36/2022, by which, his application (I.A.No.IV) filed under Order XXI Rule 29 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected.
Ex.No.36/2022 on 18.08.2022, he did not file any objections to the execution petition. It also noticed that the petitioner has set up his mother to file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to obstruct the decree which was rejected on 09.03.2023. The executing Court had granted three months time to the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of suit premises and also to pay arrears of rent of Rs.1,62,000/- which was not done by the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:49696 WP No. 12104 of 2023
the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- being the arrears of rent, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had no instructions in that
regard. Since the conduct of petitioner does not warrant any indulgence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the executing court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC to stay execution until disposal of his application to set aside the ex parte decree?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Kiran Kumar S/o B. Tippeswamy
Sri. Siradi Saayinatha Mandira
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
