The execution petition was properly dismissed by the court pending resolution of a related Supreme Court matter, upholding the principle of maintaining status quo in ongoing litigation.

ORDER :

Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2018 passed on the memo dated 20.08.2016 filed by the respondent No.2(a) and 2(f) in Ex.P.No.2710/2015 by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard.

3. Sri.B.K.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an execution petition seeking to execute the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 passed in O.S.No.14/1980 and in the said judgment at paragraph 20, the Court held that the suit schedule property is nothing but item No.5 mentioned in the written statement in O.S.No.12/1980 and the claim of the defendant No.2 in this suit i.e., O.S.No.12/1980 is rejected insofar as item No.5 of the written statement schedule property is concerned.

4. It is submitted that the petitioners filed O.S.No.12/1980 which came to be decreed vide judgment dated 21.03.1998 in favour of the petitioners and the legal heirs of the defendant No.2 filed appeal in RFA No.526/1998 which came to be partly allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14/1980 was not the subject matter in RFA No.526/1998 and the pending petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, there is no impediment to proceed with the execution to execute the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.14/1980. However, the Executing Court, based on the memo filed by the respondent Nos.2(a) and 2(f) dismissed the execution petition for the time being with liberty to file a fresh execution petition after the result of the special leave petition. It is also submitted that the Executing Court, if it had come to the conclusion that the subject matter of the execution is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would have stayed the execution proceedings, hence the dismissal of the execution petition is incorrect. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by directing the Executing Court to proceed with the pending execution in accordance with law.

5. Per contra, Smt.Nidhishree, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2(b) to 2(g) submits that in a suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.12/1980, the petitioners sought the relief that the plaintiffs who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased K.C.Ramaiah are entitled to a half share along with these respondents in all the assets and the properties of the firm and other prayers. In the said suit, schedule property consists of 10 items of the properties. The answering respondents filed written statement as well as the counter- claim. It is submitted that the answering respondents have taken a stand that there are other joint family properties and they are entitled to a share in the same and in the counter- claim, Schedule consists of 45 items of the properties. It is further submitted that item No.5 in the counter-claim is the Godown No.11, Kumbarpet, Bengaluru which is the suit schedule property in O.S.No.14/1980. It is also submitted that O.S.No.12/1980 was partly decreed. Being aggrieved, the legal heirs of K.L.Venugopal filed RFA No.526/1998 which was allowed-in-part. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed special leave petition. The subject matter in O.S No.14/1980 is the subject matter of the pending special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking note of the same, the Trial Court has rightly closed the execution petition with liberty. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the legal heirs of the respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to