Sri. T.R. Prasad vs Sri. C.B. Madappa

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Respondent instituted O.S. No. 591/2005 for recovery of possession of the suit premises. After contest, decree dated 19.02.2010 has been passed against the Petitioner. Since the decree was not honored, the Respondent has instituted EP. No. 1149/2010. An application was filed by the Petitioner/judgment debtor to extend the order of stay for 15 days. Objection was filed to the said application. The Execution Court has dismissed the application (IA. No. 6) and has ordered for issue of delivery warrant, sought by the decree holder. However, the delivery warrant has been kept in abeyance till today, to enable the judgment debtor to obtain stay. It has been made clear that, if stay is not obtained, the decree holder is at liberty to execute the warrant. Said order has been questioned in the writ petition.

Heard Sri Hanumantharayappa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri. S.V. Ganesh, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent and perused the writ petition papers.

Sri Hanumantharayappa submits that, reasonable time may be granted to the Petitioner for obtaining an appropriate interim order in RFA. No. 596/2010, as otherwise the impugned order would be given effect to and Petitioner would be dispossessed from the premises.

Sri S.V. Ganesh, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent made available a copy of the interim order dated 04.08.2010 passed in RFA. No. 596/2010 and submitted that, the condition imposed therein has not been complied with. Learned Counsel further submitted that, the said appeal had been listed today and at the request of the Petitioner/Appellant, the matter was adjourned.

Indisputedly, the decree passed in O.S. No. 591/2005 dated 19.02.2010 has been questioned by the Petitioner in RFA. No. 596/2010. By an interim order dated 04.08.2010, the decree put in challenge was stayed, subject to the Appellant depositing Rs. 7,00,000/-, in the Trial Court, within two weeks. It was made clear that, the interim order shall stand vacated without any further order in case of non-compliance. It was further made clear that, if the amount is not deposited, the Respondent/landlord would be at liberty to execute the decree, which has been impugned in the appeal.

Indisputedly, the condition imposed in the said order has not been complied with. Despite the non-compliance, the Execution Court has kept in abeyance the delivery warrant issued by it, till today. It is not the case of the Petitioner that, he has paid or deposited the sum as ordered by this Court on 04.08.2010 in RFA. No. 596/2010. In view of non-compliance of the conditions, Trial Court is justified in dismissing I.A.6. Thus the order impugned herein is neither irrational nor illegal.

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the Petitioner is granted time to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/- before 24.09.2010. If the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- is deposited before the said date, the delivery warrant issued by the Executive Court shall stand recalled. In case of default, the delivery warrant issued be executed, on or after 25.09.2010.

It is made clear that, the arrangement made is only tentative. In case of compliance, the Petitioner is at liberty to seek further orders in RFA. No. 596/2010.