IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.530/2013 BETWEEN 1. SRI. M.NAGARAJA S/O. MUNIVENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2. SRI M MUNIYAPPA S/O.MUNIVENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.25, DODDAGATTINABBE, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562114 PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MARI GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, SITE NO.1053, OPP. SBT FACTORY, NH-7, B.B.ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064.
2. SRI S SURYA NARAYANA S/O.LATE RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT.NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, RAJESHWARI NILAYA, CHIKKA VENKATAPPA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560074. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS CRP IS FILED U/S 18 OF SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2013 PASSED IN S.C. NO.253/2009 ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR “ADMISSION” THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The matter was heard on previous date and was adjourned to today for hearing on admission.
2. Today, learned counsel for the 1st respondent bank files a memo in the Court enclosing there with a copy of a receipt for having received payment under the one time settlement scheme, between the bank and the 1st petitioner and also the loan statement evidencing closure of the loan account.
3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the 1st petitioner that the 1st petitioner had participated in the loan recovery camp organized by the 1st respondent bank, wherein he had paid a sum of Rs.1,000-00 towards settlement of his account and on receipt of the said amount, the loan account came to be closed as on 15.12.2015 and hence, the decree is inexecutable.
In the light of the aforesaid fact and the 1st petitioner having entered into and availed of the one time settlement, the present revision petition does not survive for further consideration and it is accordingly dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
In view of the order of dismissal of the revision petition, the interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE CT-HR Ksm*