IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.28546 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) AND WRIT PETITION NO.28595 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. N. V. PRASAD S/O SRI. N. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O NO.1085, 5TH MAIN ROAD GOKULAM BENGALURU – 560 053 (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S.H, ADVOCATE) AND:
P. BALAJI BABU S/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O NO.61 & 62 EAST PARK ROAD 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003 (BY SRI. HARISH O.K., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2210/2016 BY THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT/PETITIONER AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner being the defendant in an Ejecting Suit in O.S.No.2210/2016, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 26.06.2018, whereby his application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking extension of period by six months for delivering back the possession of the suit property has been rejected by the learned VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
2. After service of notice, respondent-plaintiff has entered appearance through his counsel and resists the writ petition.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
a) the order refusing to grant extension is a product of exercise of discretion by the learned Judge of the Court below; Writ Court ordinarily shall not examine such orders in limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vide Trimbak Gangadhar Telanga vs. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide, AIR 1977 SC 1222; and, b) the petitioner had sought for six months additional period for vacating the premises and the same has expired long ago; now that because of the stay order granted by this Court herein, he is still being continuing in the possession; this is highly unconscionable on the part of the petitioner to say the least. No explanation is offered for the said conduct.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are dismissed with an exemplary cost of `25,000/-, which the Executing Court shall recover in addition to rental dues and pay to the respondent.
The Executing Court shall accomplish the execution proceedings within a period of two months and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-