BAGALKOTE-587103 v. KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
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.
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.
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.