High CourtsSingle Bench

Swamy vs Smt. P.V. Shantha and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 27 September 2013 · Citation: (2013) 09 KAR CK 0048

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.G. Ramesh, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No''s. 44216-44217 of 2013 (GM-CPC)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 672 words

H.G. Ramesh, J.—At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 8 is dispensed with. These two writ petitions by judgment debtor No. 8 are directed against an interlocutory order dated September 17th, 2013 passed by the executing Court in Execution No. 131 of 2009. By the impugned order, the petitioner-judgment debtor No. 8 is granted ten days'' time to vacate and to deliver possession of the execution petition schedule premises to the decree holder (respondent No. 1 herein) failing which it is ordered that the decree holder is at liberty to execute the delivery warrant with the help of police.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-judgment debtor No. 8 is in exclusive possession of the execution petition schedule premises only to the extent of 1,595 sq. ft. and that the writ petitions may be disposed of by granting time to him till July 10th, 2014 to voluntarily vacate and to deliver vacant possession of the aforesaid premises to respondent No. 1-decree holder. He further submits that the petitioner is willing to pay a lump-sum damages of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty thousand) for the use and occupation of the aforesaid premises for the period ending July 10th, 2014 and that he will pay the said amount in three equal instalments of Rs. 1,50,000/- each, through bank draft drawn in favour of the decree holder, namely Smt. P.V. Shantha. He further submits that if the petitioner commits any default, the respondent-decree holder may be held to be entitled to immediate possession of the aforesaid premises measuring 1,595 sq. ft. He also submits that the petitioner-judgment debtor No. 8 is not in possession of any other portion of the execution petition schedule premises, except 1,595 sq.ft.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-decree holder, on instructions, submits that the decree-holder has no objection for disposal of the writ petitions in terms stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, I make the following order:

a) the petitioner-judgment debtor No. 8 is granted time till July 10th, 2014 to voluntarily vacate and to deliver vacant possession of the execution petition schedule premises measuring 1,595 sq.ft. to respondent No. 1-decree holder subject to condition that the petitioner files an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the executing Court within eight weeks from today to the effect (i) that he will voluntarily vacate and deliver vacant possession of the aforesaid execution petition schedule premises to respondent No. 1-decree holder on or before July 10th, 2014; (ii) that he will pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty thousand) towards damages for the use and occupation of the aforesaid premises for the period ending July 10th,, 2014 in three equal instalments of Rs. 1,50,000/- each and that he will make the said payment through crossed bank demand drafts drawn in favour of the decree holder - Smt. P.V. Shantha; (iii) that he will pay the first instalment of Rs. 1,50,000/- on or before October 10th, 2013, the second instalment on or before December 15th, 2013 and the third instalment on or before 15th March 2014; (iv) that he will not induct any third parties into the aforesaid execution petition schedule premises; and (v) that he is in exclusive possession of only the aforesaid premises meaning 1,595 sq. ft. and that he is not in possession of any of the remaining portion of the execution petition schedule premises.

b) if the petitioner-judgment debtor No. 8 fails to file the undertaking in the aforesaid terms before the executing Court within the time stipulated or commits breach of the undertaking given, it shall be deemed that no time had been granted by this Court to vacate the execution petition schedule premises referred to above and in that event, respondent No. 1-decree holder shall be entitled for its immediate possession through the executing Court in Execution No. 131/2009.

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.