Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 504 (KAR)

D.G.SREEDHAR v. SMT. GAYATHRI

RFA/2804/2025 · 2026-02-24

Sachin Shankar Magadum

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11542 RFA No. 2804 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2804 OF 2025 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. D.G.SREEDHAR S/O S.V GANGULAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. SMT.K.S.RAJESHWARI W/O D.G. SREEDHAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 3. HIREN D. SREEDHAR S/O D.G.SREEDHAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS ALL R/O FLAT NO. C 232 2ND FLOOR, TOWER C DS MAX SAVERA APARTMENTS UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 061. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH RAO JADHAV .V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GAYATHRI W/O A. RAMESH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT GURU NILAYA OPP. PALM LEAVES APARTMENT SUMUKHA LAYOUT, 1ST A CROSS SNEHA COLONY, CHIKKALLASANDRA Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11542 RFA No. 2804 of 2025 BENGALURU - 560 061 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI.A.RAMESH NAIDU. 2. OYE SPACE JABM ONE SOURCE PVT. LTD, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NILA INVESTMENT LAYOUT BETTADASANAPURA ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE I BENGALURU-560 100. REPTD., BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. SUNIL MORE SHIVAJI RAO. 3. THE MANAGER SRI. SHIVA KUMAR OYE SPACE, JABM ONE SOURCE PVT. LTD. 2ND MAIN ROAD, NILA INVESTMENT LAYOUT BETTADASANAPURA ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE I BENGALURU-560 100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUN K.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.6598/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-02) BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11542 RFA No. 2804 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT When the appeal was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/tenants submitted that, without pressing the appeal on merits, the appellants are willing to withdraw the appeal, provided some reasonable time is granted to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondent/landlord. 2. Upon deliberation between the learned counsel for the appellants/tenants and the respondent/landlord, and on instructions from their respective parties, a consensus has been arrived at that the appellants/tenants shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the schedule premises to the respondent/landlord on or before 24.06.2026. 3. In view of the said consensus, this Court directed the appellants/tenants to file an affidavit of undertaking affirming that they shall vacate the premises - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11542 RFA No. 2804 of 2025 and deliver vacant possession to the respondent/landlord on or before 24.06.2026, without seeking any further extension of time. 4. The affidavit of undertaking filed by the appellants/tenants is taken on record. 5. In the light of the undertaking so furnished, the appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn, with a direction that the appellants/tenants shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the schedule premises to the respondent/landlord on or before 24.06.2026. It is made unequivocally clear that no further extension of time shall be granted under any circumstances. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10