As ordered on 03.11.2022, petitioners have taken

out notice to the counsel who represents the respondent in

the Trial Court by RPAD. An acknowledgment is also

produced to indicate service of notice on the counsel. In

view of the fact that the High Court Rules permit the

service of notice on the counsel appearing for the

respondent in the Trial Court and such service is held to be

deemed service, notice to the respondent is held sufficient.

- 3 -

In R.S.A.No.5264/2011, this Court restored the

decree of Trial Court and directed the defendants to quit,

vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit

property to the plaintiffs, on or before 17.04.2020. This

Court also directed the 1^st defendant/tenant not to part

with possession of the suit property or any portion thereof

in favour of any other person and continue to pay the

agreed amount till the possession was delivered on or

before 17.04.2020.

3.

Since the said order was not complied with, the

petitioners filed an execution petition in E.P.No.59/2020

before learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Hubballi. In the

said execution proceedings, a delivery warrant was issued

in respect of the suit schedule properties. The suit

schedule property indicated in the delivery warrant was as

follows;

Suit schedule property

The

portion

of

the

shop

premises

measuring 12x18 feet totally 216 sq.ft towards

the south-east left side of the Ayodhya Hotel

- 4 -

building on the ground floor, comprised in

non-residential property bearing No.134/2011,

134/2013 totally measuring no sq.feet yards

i.e,. a part of Ayodhya Hotel premises in CTS

ward No.III. situated at opposite to old bus

stand, Hubballi, bounded as under;

To the East:- Property of Gurappa Belagavi

To the West:- Property belongs to the plaintiff.

To the North:- Property belongs to the

plaintiffs.

To the South:- P.B.Road.

4.

The Bailiff, according to his report, partially

executed the warrant and was unable to handover

possession of the property situated at the north-west

corner since it9s door was locked. The report of the Bailiff

reads as follows;

<Possession warrant against J.Dr is partially

executed and possession of property situated

at South-East part is duly handed over to D.Hr

and another shop/property situated at North-

West side is found in locked condition, vide

panchanama, possession receipt and bailiff

report.=

- 5 -

5.

The petitioner thereafter made an application

seeking for permission to break open the lock and for

delivery of possession. The Executing Court, though

allowed the application, has nevertheless stated in its

order that the Court could not issue possession warrant

without their being a judgment and decree in respect of

the portion of which possession was not delivered.

6.

As could be seen from the report of the Bailiff,

the portion of the property which was not delivered did

form a part of the suit schedule property. In view of the

fact that the Bailiff himself had stated that he could not

deliver possession of a portion of the suit schedule

property and was able to execute the warrant only

partially, the observation of the Trial Court that no warrant

could be issued in respect of that portion is unsustainable.

7.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of by

directing the Executing Court to issue a delivery warrant in

respect of the portion which the Bailiff was unable to

- 6 -

handover as per his report (i.e., the North-West portion)

which had been found in a locked condition.

8.

The Executing Court shall also grant permission

to break open the lock and also grant police help to the

Bailiff to execute warrant.

SD

JUDGE

AM