The court upheld the trial court's decision to provide police protection to a decree holder without prior notice to judgment debtors.

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2 in Ex.

No.11/2019 dated 06.02.2019 by the Civil judge and JMFC, Tarikere, Chikmagalur, whereby the Trial Court had allowed the application under Order 21 Rule 32(5) Read With Section 151 of CPC., the JDRs are before this Court.

2. It is the case that the respondent herein, is the decree holder had filed the suit for declaration and injunction that came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017. Thereafter, he had filed Ex.P.No.11/2019. In that, execution petition was filed within two years, he had filed an application to dispense with notice to the JDRs and the same was allowed.

3. The Trial Court had observed that in the present case, it prima-facie reveals that, the JDRs are trying to interfere with the possession of the DHR over the petition schedule property. Hence, if the police aid is granted in favour of the DHR, no prejudice will be caused to the JDRs. Since, if the application is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the JDRs. Further, the Trial Court felt that it is necessary to direct the concerned police to provide police aid in favour of the DHR to protect his possession over the schedule property and accordingly, passed an order allowing the application filed under Order 21 rule 32(5) R/w Section 151 of CPC. Aggrieved thereby, the JDRs are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/JDRs submits that as far as dispensation of notice is concerned as the execution petition is filed within two years, he has not aggrieved by that order. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Order 21 Rule 32(5) R/w Section 151 of CPC and submits that unless and until there is disobedience and an enquiry is conducted by the Court, the Court cannot pass such an order and definitely, it would cause prejudice to the JDRs and the Trial Court without considering all these aspects and without even an enquiry whether there is any disobedience or any interference by the JDR, had passed the said order which needs to be interfered by this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/DHR submits that the JDRs have not questioned the order whereby notice in the execution petition is dispensed with and without questioning that order, he cannot question this order. He submits that he is a DHR and the judgment and decree has attained finality and the JDRs have no other option, but to obey the decree passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court had rightly observed that no prejudice will be caused to the JDRs. by passing this order as there is a decree in favour of the DHR which has to be executed. He submits that there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The undisputed facts are that the suit for declaration and injunction is decreed and the judgment and decree had attained finality. According to the DHR., as there is an interference from the JDRs, he has given a police complaint and the police have not taken action, then he approached the Civil Court and filed execution petition. In that, he had sought for dispensation of notice as well as police protection. The Trial Court had ordered dispensation of notice to the JDRs., the execution was filed within two years from the date of the decree. When it comes to the order, admittedly, there is a judgment and decree which had attained finality. Now, the DHR. wants to execute the same. How the JDRs., have aggrieved by such an order, this Court is not able to understand and appreciate. If any third parties are affected by such an order,