Karnataka High Court

Smt. Padama vs Sri Srikanth on 24 November, 2025

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                                         -1-
                                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:48421
                                                                WP No. 34489 of 2025


                          HC-KAR




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                                   BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 34489 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
                          BETWEEN:

                          1.    SMT. PADAMA
                                W/O LATE T. PADMARAJU,
                                AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

                          2.    SRI. SRIDHAR
                                S/O LATE T. PADMARAJU,
                                AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                                BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF ADLIMANE
                                HASSAN CITY, HASSAN - 573 201
                                                                       ...PETITIONERS
                          (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE A/W
                              SRI. RAMACHANDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE)

                          AND:
Digitally signed by
GAVRIBIDANUR
SUBRAMANYA GUPTA
SREENATH                  1.    SRI. SRIKANTH
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA                       S/O LATE SRIPATHI,
                                AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

                          2.    SMT. JAYASHREE
                                W/O SRIKANTH
                                AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

                                BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
                                HOUSE NO. 11, NO. 9393
                                NEAR JAIN TEMPLE,
                                  -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:48421
                                                WP No. 34489 of 2025


HC-KAR




    DODDABASADI ROAD, WARD NO. 22,
    HASSAN - 573 201.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THUSHANATH C.V, ADVOCATE)

      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.,

      THIS    PETITION,      COMING        ON     FOR     PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR


                          ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for caveat / respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to

as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of brevity.

3. 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

NC: 2025:KHC:48421

HC-KAR

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.

4. 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.

NC: 2025:KHC:48421

HC-KAR

5. 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.

6. 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

NC: 2025:KHC:48421

HC-KAR

Court, the petitioners /defendants are before this Court and so

also for non-extension of the interim order granted earlier.

7. 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.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/plaintiffs contends that the order of the First

NC: 2025:KHC:48421

HC-KAR

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.

9. 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

NC: 2025:KHC:48421

HC-KAR

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.

10. Under the circumstances, this Court is inclined to

show some lenience to the defendants, subject to the following

conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is disposed of.

(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.

(iii) The interim order granted by the First Appellate Court in RA.No.48/2024 shall stand continued.

(iv) It is needless to mention that if the defendants fails to make good the 25% of the balance arrears of rent, apart from the 50%

NC: 2025:KHC:48421

HC-KAR

already paid and deposited, within 4 weeks as ordered, the interim order would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners/defendants.