The court emphasized the need for enforcing previous decrees, underscoring that compliance with court orders is mandatory regardless of disputes over conduct within the organization.

COMMON ORDER

Judgment debtor Nos.4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 to 15 have preferred Writ Petition No.46328/2016 impugning the order dated 18.06.2016 partly allowing IA No.4 in Execution Case No.2876/2015 on the file of the learned VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for conducting the adjourned 94th Annual General Body Meeting by appointing the Court Commissioner and also the order dated 22.08.2016 rejecting IA Nos.6 and 7 and refusing to review the said order and for granting stay.

2. The decree holder in very same Execution Case No.2876/2015 has preferred Writ Petition No.39349/2016 impugning the order dated 18.06.2016 dismissing IA No.2 seeking appointment of Court Commissioner as stated above.

3. Heard Sri.Vishwanath R Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. S.V.Bhat, learned counsel for caveator respondent No.9. Learned counsel for other respondents are absent. No representation. Hence, their arguments is taken as nil. Perused the materials on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases submitted that initially the decree holder as plaintiff filed OS.No.1277/2006 against the judgment debtors seeking the decree for mandatory injunction i.e., to direct the defendants to hold the adjourned 94th Annual General Body meeting of defendant No.19 as per the calendar of events. The said suit was contested by defendant Nos.1 to 3. Whereas, other defendants have concurred with the plaintiff and sought for passing of the decree. After full-fledged trial, the suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2015 and directing the defendants to hold the adjourned 94th Annual General Body meeting of the executive committee of 19th defendant immediately with fresh calendar of events in accordance with law. The said judgment and decree reached finality. Inspite of that, no Annual General Body Meeting as directed was held. Even though, the other defendants were willing to hold the Annual General Body meeting, it was due to the high handed acts of defendant Nos.1 to 3, no such meeting was conducted. Therefore, the decree holder approached the executing Court by filing Execution Case No.2876/2015 on the file of the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru seeking to execute the decree in accordance with law.

5. During the pendency of execution case, the decree holder filed IA No.2 seeking appointment of Court Commissioner, who is competent and having knowledge to hold the adjourned 94th Annual General Body Meeting from the stage, where it was stopped. At the same time, the judgment debtor Nos.4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 to 15 have filed similar application IA No.4 praying for similar relief. The executing Court considered both these applications and allowed the same in part, however, rejecting the claim of the decree holder and the judgment debtors for appointment of Court Commissioner to hold General Body Meeting immediately. But on the other hand, while allowing the applications, it has held that fresh direction is to be issued to judgment debtor Nos.1 to 3 to hold such meeting within three months and only if they failed to do so, the decree holder and judgment debtors can seek appointment of Court Commissioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these findings recorded by the trial Court is against the findings recorded by the trial Court while decreeing the suit, where the Court has specifically held that there is a need to hold the adjourned 94th Annual General Body Meeting from the stage at which, it was stopped. Otherwise, interest of the institution would suffer. Learned counsel further submitted that when the petit