Writ Petition No. 23649 of 2012 · Karnataka High Court

Smt.K.Manjula W/o Sri.B.S.Satish Aged 45 years R/at No.678, 5-A Main 6th Cross, HAL 3rd Stage Bangalore – 560 075 … Petitioner (By Shri M.M.Ashoka & Parameshivaiah, Advocates) And: Sri. Gagandeep Singh S/o Sri. Harbajan Singh Kalgidhar Videos Aged 42 years, H.L.No.82/2 (Old Khaneshwari No.129) Nagawarapalya Village Binniganahalli Dhakle Bangalore – 560 093 … Respondent ***** This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records from the office of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore in (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:2) Ex.P.779/12 and to quash Annexure-A dtd. 4.7.2012 passed in adjourning the matter for unlimited period on the ground SLP is pending before Supreme Court, etc. This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:- ORDER The petition coming on for Orders, as regards issuance of notice to the respondent, the complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of his best efforts, the respondent is dodging the service of notice and that permission was granted to serve notice of this petition on the counsel appearing for the respondent before the Executing Court, where proceedings are pending. The Counsel for the respondent, however, has refused service.

There was an order of eviction passed under Section 27 (2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and the same having been affirmed by this Court in revision, challenging the order of eviction, the same is sought to be executed. The execution (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:2) petition was filed on 29.3.2012. The Executing Court by its order dated 4.7.2012 has, on the basis of a memo filed by the respondent, to the effect that a Special Leave Petition has been filed against the order passed in revision, in SLP No.10833- 834/2012, has opined that notwithstanding that there is no order of stay granted by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition, has deemed it just and proper not to issue any delivery warrant, as long as, the Special Leave Petition is pending before the Supreme Court. It is that order, which is sought to be questioned in the present petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has obtained an order of eviction after long drawn out proceedings, lasting over ten years and the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court having been confirmed by this Court, revisional jurisdiction, is no impediment, whatsoever to enforce the same. The filing of a Special Leave Petition by the respondent, by itself does not enable the petitioner to claim immunity to negate the order of eviction. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:2) Even in the unlikely event that leave should be granted by the Apex Court and the eviction order be stayed or even set aside, tenant – respondent could always seek restitution. Therefore, he would submit that notwithstanding that the respondent has not been served in the present petition, an appropriate direction be issued to the Executing Court to expedite the proceedings, since the respondent is represented by counsel before the Executing Court.