Karnataka High Court
Sri Santosh S/O Manjunath Shetty vs Sri Mallikarjun S/O Dundappa Paranatti on 18 April, 2024
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6522
WP No. 102355 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 102355 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI SANTOSH S/O. MANJUNATH SHETTY,
AGE: ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. HOTEL VARTHE PANJURLI,
MAIN ROAD, SHIRUR PARK,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580031.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MALLIKARJUN
S/O. DUNDAPPA PARANATTI,
AGE: ABOUT 87 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
2. SRI BASAVARAJ
S/O. MALLIKARJUN PARANATTI,
AGE: ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
3. SRI SIDDALINGESH
KATTIMANI
S/O. MALLIKARJUN PARANATTI,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
AGE: ABOUT 44 YEARS,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
DHARWAD BENCH
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.13,
1ST PHASE, AKSHAY COLONY,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.12.2023 PASSED IN EXECUTION
PETITION NO.73/2019 BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC III, HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6522
WP No. 102355 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following relief:
"That by way of writ of certiorari this Hon'ble Court
be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated
16.12.2023 passed in Execution Petition no.73/2019 by
the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC III, Hubballi
vide Annexure-C."
2. Sri S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that petitioner was judgment debtor in Executive
Petition no.73/2019 on file of Principal Civil Judge, Hubbli. Said
petition was filed for execution of judgment and decree dated
26.02.2019 passed in OS no.45/2017. It was submitted that
under decree, defendant was directed to handover actual
vacant possession of suit property within three months and to
pay arrears of rent amount of Rs.96,000/- to go on paying
amount as and when due till vacating of premises. It was
submitted that without there being any clarity regarding
monthly rent payable assessment of total arrears at
Rs.3,10,326/- by Executing Court was not justified and
therefore, seeks for quashing of same.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused
writ petition record.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6522
4. From above, it is seen that main ground for
challenging impugned order is that decree is not clear about
monthly rent payable. There is no dispute about petitioner
having handed over possession of property to decree holder.
Perusal of relevant portion of decree would indicate as follows:-
"The defendant is hereby directed to hand over the
actual vacant possession of the suit property to the
plaintiffs within three months from the date of this
order.
Further the defendant is hereby directed to pay
the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.96,000/- and also
go on paying the rent as and when become due till
vacating the premises."
5. Indeed, operative portion of judgment does not
quantify monthly rent payable. However, issue no.3 framed in
suit is whether plaintiffs prove that rate of rent of suit schedule
property was Rs.24,000/- p.m. which is answered in
affirmative. Such being case, ground urge for challenging order
appears spacious and untenable. As such, this Court is
unimpressed. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VMB
Ct: mck
