MAHAJAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SMT. RITA MAHAJAN Vs. SRI K.N. SUDEENDRA, S/O NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is judgment debtor - tenant's revision challenging the order dated 03.11.2009 in Execution No. 34/2009 on the file of the Court of 14th Additional City Civil Judge (CCH 28), Bangalore on I.A. Nos. 2 to 5. However when the matter is taken up for final hearing today in the presence of Counsel for both parties, the Counsel for petitioner has restricted his prayer in this revision to the order passed by the trial court against its application in I.A. No. 3, which was filed under Order 21 Rule 26. CPC seeking "to stay of further proceedings of the present execution proceedings, which is pursuant to the exparte decree dated 26.9.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court in O.S. No. 9242/2007". The dismissal of which is challenged in this revision.

(2.) THE facts leading up to the filing of this revision are that the petitioner herein is judgment debtor in Execution No. 34/2009 which is filed by the respondent herein to execute the decree of ejectment passed in O.S. No. 9242/2007 on me file of the 14th Additional City Civil Judge, CCH -28, Bangalore.

(3.) PETITIONER 's case is that it was not aware of the original suit as well as execution proceeding initiated by respondent herein. According to the Director of the petitioner, on 9.2.2009 at about 8.30 a.m., when she was taking her husband to hospital for post surgery follow -up treatment, the respondent came to the suit schedule premises along with court Bailiff to execute delivery warrant issued in execution No. 34/2009, she being under distress made an endorsement on the warrant seeking two weeks time to voluntarily vacate the premises and left with her husband to hospital leaving her daughter behind. Upon her return from the hospital, she found her house locked and sealed, her daughter missing, later traced in her brother's house. Petitioner, her family members were on street with only wearing apparels. Later, on 10.2.2009 she moved the executing court, sought for two months time to vacate the tenanted premises in her occupation. The matter was adjourned to 11.2.2009, on that day respondent appeared and sought time to file objections by 12.2.2009. On 12.2,2009 objections were not filed. However the shara of the Bailiff which was extracted in the order sheet showed that while executing delivery warrant the respondent -decree holder himself locked up the premises in occupation of the petitioner and the same was viewed seriously by the executing court regarding the manner in which the delivery warrant was executed, hence posted the matter to 17.2.2009 to hear arguments on Bailiffs report.