✦ Karnataka High Court

BAGALKOTE-587103 v. KARNATAKA

Writ Petition No. 114825 of 2019E S INDIRESH, EQUITY

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is owner of the property in question and the defendants are the tenants. The monthly rent of the premises in question is more than ₹25,000/- and term of…

Judgment

(BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE PRINCIPAL SHRISHAR S/O RAJAREDDY AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRINCIPAL, R/AT: CHETHANA EDUCATION TRUST, 15TH MAIN CROSS, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOTE-587103. …PETITIONER AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.2 DATED 23/07/2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BAGALKOT IN O.S.NO.44/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:4973 WP No. 114825 of 2019 ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2.

In this writ petition, petitioner/plaintiff is assailing the order dated 23.07.2019 in O.S.No.44/2014 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkote, impounding Ex.P1 marked before the Trial Court in the said suit.

3.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is owner of the property in question and the defendants are the tenants. The monthly rent of the premises in question is more than ₹25,000/- and term of the lease is for a period of two years. In that view of the matter, the rent agreement produced at Ex.P1 has been rightly impounded by the Trial Court and accordingly, no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India required. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. YAN, LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23 Sd/- JUDGE

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 114825 of 2019). ← Search more judgments