It is unfortunate case that the complainant has

been driven before this Court since 2006 till today

without a site or alternative site as agreed by the

Bangalore

Development

Authority

in

Execution

No.1633/2017, which was filed in pursuance of the

decree dated 12.08.2016 made in O.S. No.5944/2006.

2.

The present complainant filed a suit for

declaration and injunction in respect of site bearing

No.22, measuring 20 x 25 feet, WCR 3^rd Stage, 2^nd

Block, 8^th Phase, Bangalore as per the allotment letter

No.A7/22-WCR-75-6 dated 05.05.1975 with specific

boundaries. After contest by both the parties, the

Trial Court by the judgment and decree dated

12.08.2016

decreed

the

suit

of

the

- 3 -

plaintiff/complainant and declared that the plaintiff is

entitled for the absolute Sale Deed from the Bangalore

Development Authority and accordingly, the Bangalore

Development Authority was directed to execute the

Sale Deed in respect of suit schedule property in

favour of plaintiff within three months from the date

of the judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty

to obtain registered Sale Deed through the agency of

the Court.

3.

The said judgment and decree passed by

the Trial Court in the year 2016 has reached finality.

The

present

complainant

has

filed

Execution

No.1633/2017. The Executing Court executed a Sale

Deed in favour of the complainant under the

registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.2019. Thereafter,

when the complainant went to the spot of the site, the

same was allotted to somebody by the Bangalore

Development Authority. The same was brought to the

- 4 -

notice of the Executing Court and the Executing Court

issued arrest warrant to the Bangalore Development

Authority. Thereafter, a joint memo came to be filed

by the complainant-decree holder and the Bangalore

Development Authority -judgment debtor duly signed

by both the counsel for the parties and the same

reads as under:

<The counsel for the Judgment Debtor hereby

submits that, the Judgment Debtor is ready to satisfy

judgment and Decree Passed by this Hon9ble Court in

O.S.No.5944/2006. In this regard the Authority had

taken special care passed the alternative remedy for

the purpose of giving immediate relief and same is

accepted by the Decree Holder.

(a)

That the alternative site will be allotted by

the J.D.R Authority to the Decree Holder within 3

months period from today, for this Tippani Copy is

enclosed for the kind perusal of this Hon9ble Court,

(b)

That the J.D.R. does not comply the

condition, the Decree Holder can reopen the

Execution and initiate recourse of law for the default

- 5 -

committed by the J.D.R, and liberty kept open, the

same may be taken on record and close the E.P. filed

by the Decree Holder against the J.D.R in the ends of

justice and equity.

Advocate for Decree Holder.

Decree Holder

Advocate for Judgment Debtor Judgment Debtor

Bengaluru,

Date:27.03.2021.

4.

One of the condition in the joint memo that

if the judgment debtor does not comply with the

condition, the decree holder can re-open the execution

and initiate recourse of law for the default committed

by the judgment debtor and liberty was kept open and

accordingly, EP filed by the Decree Holder against

judgment debtor was closed. The suit was filed in the

year 2006 and obtained a decree after contest on

12.08.2016 and in spite of undertaking given by the

Bangalore Development Authority in the joint memo

- 6 -

that the Special care would be taken to provide

immediate relief, the same has not been complied.

Therefore, the complainant was forced to file the

present contempt petition on 18.11.202.

5.

This Court after issuance of notice to the

accused, passed a detailed order on 11.08.2022,

which reads as under:

<1.

The present contempt petition is filed

under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act to take action against willful

disobedience

of

the

joint

memo

dated

27.03.2021 made in Ex.No.1633/2017 vide

Annexure-D.

2.

The

present

complainant

filed

O.S.No.5944/2006 b