1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.281/2017

BETWEEN

MR. SYED FAZALUDDIN,

S/O MR. ABDUL GAFFAR SAB,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

PROPRIETOR,

M/S K.G.N. TEA STALL,

NO.5/27/2, NEW NO. 27/2/634/5,

DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM ROAD,

GOVINDAPURA,

ARABIC COLLEGE POST,

BENGALURU - 560 045.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND

MR. ARIF PASHA,

S/O MR. ABDUL RASHEED,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

R/A NO.63, NEAR WATER TANK,

PILLANNA GARDEN,

SECOND STAGE,

BENGALURU - 560 045.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.NIKHILESH M RAO, ADVOCATE)

2

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS

ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2017 PASSED IN

MISC.NO.153/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE

COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU, THIS PETITION

DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTENABLE.

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner

in Misc. Petition No.153/2017 before the X Additional

Judge, Small Causes, Bengaluru challenging an order

dated 17.07.2017, by which the Miscellaneous

Petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil

Procedure (henceforth referred to as 'of CPC') was

rejected.

2.

The respondent herein filed S.C.No.689/2016 for

ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit schedule

property. The said suit was decreed exparte and an

execution

petition

was

filed

in

Execution

No.401/2017. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed

Miscellaneous Petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC

3

to recall the exparte decree in S.C.No.689/2016.

Since the Court dealing with the miscellaneous

petition felt that the execution petition filed in

Execution No.401/2017 was fully satisfied, the Court

did not feel it appropriate to recall the exparte

decree. Hence, it rejected the miscellaneous

petition.

3.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present

writ petition is filed.

4.

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel

for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has

now filed a suit for declaration that the judgment in

S.C.No.689/2016 is not binding upon the petitioner

and that an order of temporary injunction restraining

the respondent from interfering with his possession

is passed. He therefore, submitted that no useful

purpose would be served in keeping this revision

petition alive.

4

5.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties.

6.

The fact that the Execution No.401/2017 is disposed

of as having been fully satisfied in terms of the order

dated 17.07.2017 is not disputed. If that be so, the

Court was fully justified in not entertaining the

miscellaneous petition filed under Order IX Rule 13

of CPC. Now that the petitioner has filed a suit for

declaration that the judgment in S.C.No.689/2016

does not bind his interest, where interim injunction is

granted to protect his possession, no useful purpose

would be served in keeping this revision petition

pending before this Court.

7.

Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.

However, the petitioner is entitled to urge all the

contentions raised in this revision petition in the civil

suit filed by him.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GJM