AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J
Heard Sri. Somashekar Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is an objector in Execution No.1089/2018 on the file of the 10th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-26). The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a tenant in the suit property, and because of issuance of delivery warrant he is going to be dispossessed. It is also stated that the petitioner has made an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC and till the application is decided after holding an enquiry, the warrant cannot be executed.
As per the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner became a tenant under the judgment debtor after institution of the suit. Therefore his application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, is not maintainable in view of Order 21 Rule 102 of CPC. The tenant is bound by the decree. Therefore, there is no infirmity in issuing delivery warrant. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
However, considering the hardship that the petitioner has pleaded, the petitioner is given one month time from today to vacate the suit property.