Smt. Padama Vs Sri Srikanth

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.08.2025 PASSED IN IA FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT HASSAN IN R.A. NO.48/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for caveat / respondents No.1 and 2.

¶27

The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of brevity.

¶28

This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are defendants before the Trial Court. The defendants are challenging the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed on

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48421 WP No. 34489 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

IA.No.4, wherein the defendants sought for extension of time to deposit the amount in RA.No.48/2024 and consequentially to issue a writ of mandamus for a direction to continue the interim order granted by the Appellate Court in RA.No.48/2024.

¶32

The plaintiffs had filed a suit in OS.No.431/2022 for ejectment to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property against the defendants. The same came to be decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants were ordered to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property within two months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal in RA.No.48/2024 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Hassan. In the regular appeal, the defendants filed an application for interim stay under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) for interim stay and being satisfied with the same, the First Appellate Court granted an order of stay subject to deposit of 50% of the arrears of rent, within 30 days from the date of the order, vide its order dated 24.06.2025.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48421 WP No. 34489 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The defendants in compliance of the said order, deposited Rs.2,50,000/- on 23.07.2025 and later a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the plaintiffs and the interim order was continued. This being the state of affairs, the defendants filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC to extend the time to deposit balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was the arrears of rent. The Appellate Court after hearing the plaintiffs and the defendants, rejected the application vide its order dated 28.08.2025.

¶36

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that thereafter, the petitioners/defendants have deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 26.09.2025 by way of UPI payment to plaintiff No.2 and a memo to that effect also came to be filed before the First Appellate Court. After deposit of this amount, the defendants filed an application for restoration of the interim order. However, First Appellate Court rejected the same, as there was no compliance in accordance to the order passed by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, aggrieved by the order vacating the stay granted by the First Appellate

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48421 WP No. 34489 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Court, the petitioners /defendants are before this Court and so also for non-extension of the interim order granted earlier.

¶40

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that the First Appellate Court has not considered the reasons assigned in the application while seeking extension of time to deposit the amount, in view of the medical emergency of the mother of the defendants. Under such circumstances, he contends that the First Appellate Court ought to have shown some leniency, as the defendants were ready and willing to pay the balance amount and only sought for some more time due to the medical exigencies of their mother. He also contends that subsequently he has made good the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- and he is also ready and willing to make good further payment as ordered by this Court, within a reasonable time and he would continue to pay and argue the matter before the First Appellate Court. In the meanwhile, the interim order requires to be extended, failing which, the very purpose of filing the appeal would get frustrated.

¶41

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

respondents/plaintiffs contends that the order of the First

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48421 WP No. 34489 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Appellate Court was very specific, that the stay was granted subject to deposit of 50% of the amount, within 30 days and a further order was passed that if the order is not complied within the stipulated time, the stay granted would stand vacated automatically without reference to the Court. The subsequent application for extension of time for deposit and payment of the amount was rightly rejected by the First Appellate Court, which does not call for interference. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of this petition.

¶46

Having heard learned counsel for both parties, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is for ejectment and payment of arrears of rent. Defendants are the tenants. In compliance to the order of the First Appellate Court, the defendants have made good 50% of the amount (Rs.6,00,000/-) is paid on various dates, as on today. There is still due arrears of about Rs.6,55,000/-. I do not find any error in the order of the First Appellate Court for the reason that the First Appellate Court is bound by its own order and cannot go behind it as specific time was given to deposit the amount. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the defendants have paid Rs.6,00,000/- as arrears of

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48421 WP No. 34489 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

rent and they are willing to pay the balance amount in the due course of time, this Court deems it appropriate to show indulgence to the defendants so that they can pay the amount as well as prosecute the first appeal filed by them challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

¶50

Under the circumstances, this Court is inclined to

¶51

show some lenience to the defendants, subject to the following conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The writ petition is disposed of.

¶54

(ii) Petitioners/defendants shall pay 25% in addition to the 50% ordered by the First Appellate Court in RA.No.48/2024 towards arrears of rent, within a period of 4 weeks from today. They can either deposit directly to the account of the respondents/plaintiffs or deposit in the Court.

¶55