- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12143 WP No. 6575 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6575 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. R V VENKTESH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE R. VENU R/AT FLAT NO.4 NO 409, 2ND FLOOR 4TH B MAIN ROAD HRBR BDA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS KACHARAKANAHALLI BENGALURU 560 043. 2. MS. ANJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS D/O LATE K M MATHEW R/AT NO. 409, 3RD FLOOR 4B MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK HRBR BDA LAYOUT KACHARAKANAHALLI BANGALORE 560 043. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHHAYA K. & K B S MANIAN, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. KHUSHBOO RANKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O VIJAY KUMAR RANKA R/AT FOURTH FLOOR NO. 4BM-409, 2ND BLOCK HRBR BDA LAYOUT KACHARAKANAHALLI BANGALORE 560 043 REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. D RAMESH Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12143 WP No. 6575 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. 506 II BLOCK SMR VINAY ESTATE HORMAVU RING ROAD BENGALURU 560 043. 2. ZIYU HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 485 SN TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR HBR 3RD BLOCK, OPPOSITE BDA COMPLEX POLICE CHOWKI, BANGALORE 560043 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. AMHED ALI BAIG E ZIYUGROUP6@GMAIL.COM. 3. MR. MOHAMMMED IYOOB AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O YOUSUF JAN R/AT NO.409, 1ST FLOOR 4B MAIN ROAD 2ND BLOCK HRBR BDA LAYOUT KACHARAKANAHALLI BANGALORE 560 043. 4. MRS. MANJULA MERINA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O OF SAMRAJ R/AT NO. 409, 1ST FLOOR 4B MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK HRBR BDA LAYOUT KACHARAKANAHALLI BANGALORE-560043. 5. MRS. GEETHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O TIMOTHY CHAPMAN R/AT SHREE SAINATH HERITAGE HORAMAVU BANJARA LAYOUT 305, 3RD FLOOR, HORAMAVU AGARA HORAMAVU, BENGALURU- 650043. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12143 WP No. 6575 of 2025 6. MRS PAYAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.409, 2ND FLOOR 4B MAIN ROAD 2ND BLOCK HRBR BDA LAYOUT, KACHARAKANAHALLI BANGALORE-560043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KASHYAP N NAIK.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 TO R6 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 22.03.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 14.02.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 1ST ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-2) IN MISC.CASE.NO. 708/24 (ANNEXURE- A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners (petitioner Nos.1 and 5 therein), challenging the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.1 filed under Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.2 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Misc.No.708/2024, whereby the trial Court has allowed I.A.No.2 and partly allowed I.A.No.1, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12143 WP No. 6575 of 2025 subject to payment of monthly rent/damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- in respect of 2BHK apartment and Rs.35,000/- in respect of 3BHK apartment including arrears, if any. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that in the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1964/2023, the petitioners have been placed ex-parte. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners herein have filed Mis.No.708/2024. During the pendency of the miscellaneous petition, plaintiff-land lady has filed Ex.No.1715/2024 seeking execution of judgment and decree dated 24.04.2024 passed in O.S.No.1964/2023. In the execution petition, the trial Court by order dated 20.11.2024, issued delivery warrants to each flat and permitted the bailiff to break open the locks and also need police help. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12143 WP No. 6575 of 2025 3. In the meantime, the respondents have filed W.P.No.25655/2024 before this Court. This Court on 20.09.2024 has passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Vakalath on behalf of petitioner No.2 has been filed in the Office this morning. A week’s time is granted to the petitioners to file a typed copy of the cause title. Learned counsel Sri.Nithin G., has entered appearance for respondents No.1. Issue notice to respondents No.2 and 3. Having regard to the impugned order dated 04.09.2024, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the directions issued by the Executing Court to the petitioners herein to deposit rentals at Rs.25,000/- for 2 BHK and Rs.35,000/- for 3 BHK, is reasonable. Therefore, the petitioners shall deposit the rents as directed by the Executing Court. Two weeks time is granted to the petitioners to deposit the rental as directed. It is also clarified that the Court considering the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners can consider the application filed by the petitioners - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12143 WP No. 6575 of 2025 seeking stay of further proceedings in the execution case.” 4. Thereafter, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 filed by the petitioners in Misc.No.708/2024. In respect of six apartments, four apartments have already been vacated. Now the issue is only between two apartments, where the petitioners herein are the tenants. Since the miscellaneous petition itself is pending before the trial Court in Misc.No.708/2024, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is required to be set aside with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the Misc.No.708/2024 as expeditiously as possible. 5. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER a) The writ petition is disposed of. b) The order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.1 filed under Section 151 of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12143 WP No. 6575 of 2025 CPC in Misc.No.708/2024, is hereby set aside and the order passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is hereby confirmed. c) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the Misc.No.708/2024 as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. d) It is made clear that that the petitioners herein and respondent No.1 are the only necessary parties in the miscellaneous petition. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to hear them and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. e) It is also made clear that till disposal of the miscellaneous petition, respondent No.1 undertakes that she will not precipitate the execution petition. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25