Smt. Divyamba vs Smt. B N Sudha
2022 Latest Caselaw 5005 Kant

                                        C.R.P.No.88/2022

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.88/2022(SC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. DIVYAMBA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
W/O S.KANTHARAJU
D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHAR
R/AT NO.482, 2ND FLOOR
8TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 040                     ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. B.N.SUDHA
       W/O LATE V.N.SURESH
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
       R/AT NO.909/A/53
       6TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA
       BANGALORE - 560 040

2.     SMT. B.N.VEENA
       W/O H.NAGARAJ
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
       R/AT NO.834, 5TH MAIN
       M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
       BANGALORE - 560 040

3.     SMT. SHASHI PANDITA
       W/O SRI NAVEEN PADITA
       AGED BOUT 54 YEARS
       R/AT NO.101, 'A' BLOCK
       CANOPY CALYX APARTMENTS
       COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT
       BANGALORE - 560 024
                                                   C.R.P.No.88/2022

                               2



4.   SRI ANNE GOWDA @ ANIL GOWDA
     S/O MALLE GOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     R/AT NO.482, 2ND FLOOR
     8TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS
     VIJAYANAGAR
     BANGALORE - 560 040                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3)

      THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 18 OF SMALL CAUSES COURT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.12.2021 PASSED IN
S.C.NO.1552/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND ARREARS
OF RENT.

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


                         ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the decree for

ejectment passed against respondent No.4 and in favour of

respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Petitioner was not a party to the said

proceedings. She is seeking permission to challenge the

said decree on the ground that she was in possession of

the property in her independent rights and collusive decree

is secured by respondent Nos.1 to 3.

C.R.P.No.88/2022

3. If that is the case, remedy of the petitioner is

to intervene as obstructer in execution petition to be filed,

if any, or to file suit for declaration to that effect.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

reserving liberty to the petitioner to go before execution

Court as obstructer, petition may be disposed of. His

submission is recorded.

Reserving liberty, petition is disposed of.

Pending I.As. stood disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE pgg