SRI K MANJUNATH v. SRI R RANGE GOWDA

SRI K MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI KRISHNAPPA, R/AT 24/1, 42/1, 2ND CROSS ROAD, 18TH MAIN ROAD, ‘A’ BLOCK, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 021.

SRI. S CHANDRASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE SADANANDAMURTHY V L, R/AT 24/43, 2ND CROSS ROAD, 18TH MAIN ROAD, ‘A’ BLOCK, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 021. (BY SRI. G R MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI R RANGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, R/AT NO.16, 18TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, K P AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023. (BY SRI.V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN EXECUTION CASE NO.25011 OF 2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 28TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH NO.29) MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU WITH A REQUEST TO DISPOSE OF - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7070 WP No. 5196 of 2024 THE APPLICATION AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND E1 OF THE PETITIONERS FILED IN THE ABOVE EXECUTION PETITION AT THE EARLIEST INSTEAD THE REGULAR HEARING DATED 14.3.24. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition by the obstructors / objectors Ex.No.25011/2024 on the file of the XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, is for a direction to the Executing Court to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 99 and 100 CPC, which is pending consideration.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

It is submitted that since the said application has not been disposed of, the respondent – decree holder is making hasty attempts to demolish the existing structure built on the suit schedule property and as such, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection for application filed under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC to be disposed of in accordance with law. It is further - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7070 WP No. 5196 of 2024 submitted by the respondent on instructions that till disposal of the said application by the Trial Court, respondent shall not demolish the schedule property. It is however submitted that the petitioners also needs to be directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent – decree holder of the schedule property.

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioners – obstructors submits that petitioners would not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent – decree holder, till disposal of the application.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and joint submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing the Trial Court to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application dated

12.02.2024 filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 99 and 100 CPC, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

It is further directed that till disposal of the said application, while the petitioners shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the decree - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7070 WP No. 5196 of 2024 holder and the decree holder shall not demolish any portion of the existing building / structure.

All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. SD/- JUDGE SV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 8