A judgment debtor cannot bear the entire liability for a joint decree if others are not served or pursued; proper procedure must be adhered to in execution matters.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner – judgment debtor No.2 is before this Court calling in question an order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in Ex.P.No.1636/2015, by which an attachment warrant of movables is issued against the petitioner.

2. Heard Smt. Ratna N., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Devaraju H.V., learned counsel for respondent.

3. The petitioner is judgment debtor No.2. The respondent is the decree holder. The respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), institutes a suit in O.S.No.5796/2011, on the score that the defendants are jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.3,25,410/- along with interest. The concerned Court passes the following order:

“7. On the above pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to pay Rs.3,25,410/-?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim of Rs.3,25,410/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.?

3. What Order or Decree ?

8. To prove the case of the plaintiff, one witness is examined as PW.1 and got marked with 39 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-39. The defendant No.6 has examined one witness as DW.1 and got marked two documents as per Exs.D-1 & 2.

9. Heard the arguments of Sri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri B.Μ.Α., learned counsel for the 6th defendant. Perused the materials on record.

10. My findings on the above issues are as under: -

(1) ISSUE NO.1 : Partly Affirmative.

(2) ISSUE NO.2 : Partly Affirmative.

(3) ISSUE NO.3 : As per final order for the following:

REASONS

11. ISSUE NO.1:- This is a very simple case filed by the plaintiff KPTCL against the defendants for claiming a sum of Rs.3,25,410/- along with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff, which is a registered company was a lessee under the 1st defendant. It is also an undisputed fact that the 6th defendant is the owner of the property bearing No.14/3, Corporation Nos.2/1 and 2/2 situated on Nrupathunga road, Bangalore, had entered into lease agreement with M/s Canara Leasing Company Ltd., on 4.2.2002. As per that lease agreement this Canara Leasing Company had built a building took it for lease for a period of 30 years and as on the date of the expiry of lease period M/Canara Leasing Authority Ltd., shall surrender the possession of the building to this 6th defendant, which is an undisputedly owner of the landed property.

12. By virtue of that lease hold right in the hands of this M/s Canara Leasing Company Ltd., it further entered into an agreement with the 1 defendant company for leasing out his premises situated in 3rd, 4th and 5th floors. Accordingly the plaintiff approached this 1 defendant company and entered into lease agreement on 2.2.2001 for getting a lease of building to the extent of 2000 sq.ft., in the 5th floor of the building on the monthly rent of Rs.26,000/- with interest free refundable deposit of Rs.2,60,000/-. It is also an undisputed fact that during 2003 the plaintiff further entered into lease agreement with the 1 defendant to lease of the building to the extent of 500 sq.ft., in the 4th floor for the rent of Rs.9,990/-and also payment of security deposit of Rs.99,900/-. So, by virtue of these two lease agreements no doubt this plaintiff's contention that he was in possession and enjoyment of the respective portions in 4th and 5th floor of the building which was constructed by M/s Canara Leasing Company Ltd., given this lease hold rights to 1st defendant. It is also an undisputed fact that the defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 are the partners in 1st defendant company. But the 2nd defendant took the contention that he i