Karnataka High Court
WP/10560/2024 of SMT RATHNA M SHETTY Vs SAYYED ALTHAF on 30 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010207032024 NC: 2026:KHC:54383 WP No. 10560 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 10560 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. RATHNA.M.SHETTY W/O LATE MAHABALA SHETTY, AGED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
[SMT RATHNA M SHETTY VS. SAYYED ALTHAF AND ANOTHER]
28.09.2026
(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
1. The challenge in the present petition is to an Impugned Order dated 08.02.2024, passed on I.A. III, in Execution Case No.6/2018, on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Moodabidri [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, directions have been passed to conduct an enquiry in the execution proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the settled legal position that since the premises was taken on tenancy by the father of the respondents and that once the suit is filed against tenants, and a decree is passed, which is affirmed upto the second appellate stage, no enquiry is requisite qua the other legal representatives of the erstwhile tenant.
3. In this regard, he seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Kohli vs. Rakesh Jain And Another1.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that this petition has become infructuous. It is contended that pursuant to an order dated 19.11.2025, passed in RSA No.692/2024, by a Coordinate Bench, the appellant/respondent No.1 had filed an undertaking that he will be vacating the suit premises on or before 31.12.2025. He thus submits that since the premises have already been handed over, nothing further would survive either in this petition or in the execution.
5. However, learned counsel for the parties’ request for an adjournment to ascertain the current status possession in the matter, including as to whether vacant possession of the suit premises has been handed back to the petitioner.
1 AIR 2018 SC 2708
6. At their request, list on 30.09.2026.
Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE
JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA