IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION No. 33168/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SYED NAZEER AHAMED, S/O SYED BUDAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O 5TH BLOCK, AHAMADNAGAR, MOHALLA, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI VISHWANATH H.M. & MS. B.N. MANJULA ADVS., ) AND:
AMEENABEEAMMA, W/O SYED ABDUL HAQ, MAJOR, R/O GALIPURA VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK-571 313. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHANTHAKUMARA B., FOR M/S. C.S DWARAKANATH & ASSTS., ADVS.,) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 4.6.2014, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC AT CHAMARAJNAGAR IN EX.P.NO.16/2010, PRODUCED AT ANNEX-A THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is the judgment debtor.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent/decree holder filed O.S.No.66/2003 seeking for declaration and possession and also for consequential decree of permanent injunction. It is also not in dispute that O.S.No.66/2003 was decreed and the said decree was also affirmed in R.A.No.111/2009. It is also not in dispute that these decrees have attained finality. Thus, it cannot be in dispute that the petitioner who took up the defence in O.S.No.66/2003 that he was in possession of the suit property in which a shed existed, lies in Sy.No.15 and it is that particular property which the decree holder was entitled for possession as per the decree.
3. Since the petitioner/judgment debtor is well aware of the premises which is in his possession, the Trial Court is merely required to direct the judgment debtor to handover possession of that particular property in which the shed is existed to the decree holder. If the judgment debtor refuses to handover possession of that particular premises which is in his possession, the Executing Court is at liberty to direct the judgment debtor to vacate from that particular premises and ensure that possession was delivered to the decree holder.
4. The Trial Court, by the impugned order, has come to the conclusion that on the basis of surveyor’s report, the property is identifiable and has issued a delivery warrant. In my view, this order does not call for interference. Writ Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS