IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.357 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Thimmapa S/o Malla Naik, Aged about 69 years, R/at Tadadakoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga District – 577 418.
2. Shivappa S/o Malla Naik, Aged about 60 years, R/at Tadadakoppa Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga District – 577 418.
(By Sri. Ganapathi, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. K.H. Kollappa S/o Hucha Naik, Aged about 70 years, R/at Totadakoppa Village, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimogga District – 577 418.
… Petitioners 2. Sri. Shankar K.H S/o Hucha Naik, Aged about 64 years, R/at Totadakoppa Village, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimogga District – 577 418.
3. Sri. Ravindra K.H S/o Hucha Naik, Aged about 57 years, R/at Totadakoppa Village, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimogga District – 577 418.
… Respondents (By Sri. Veerendra R. Patil, Advocate for R1 and R3) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 23.03.2017 passed in Ex. No.42/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, Shivamogga District, issuing the delivery warrant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of both the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Execution Court by which the Execution Court has ordered for issue of delivery warrant of possession.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that being aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2015 passed in R.A.No.61/2015, the petitioners have already filed an appeal in which an application for stay has been filed.
4. In view of the fact that the petitioners have already assailed the validity of the order dated 24.04.2015 in an appeal before this Court, it is not necessary to examine the validity of the order impugned in this petition passed by the Execution Court. Even otherwise, no grounds are made out to interfere with the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Execution Court. However, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek stay in the appeal, which has been filed by them against the order dated 24.04.2015.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-