SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 15350

- 1 -

WP No. 103071 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 103071/2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1.

SIKANDAR MOHAMMAD ALI DALAL,

A/A 54 YEARS, SERVICE,

R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL,

REPRESENTED BY HIS P.A. HOLDER,

MOHAMMAD UMMAR MOHAMMAD ALI DALAL,

A/A 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: U.K.

2.

MOHAMMAD UMMAR MOHAMMAD ALI DALAL,

A/A 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

R/O: MANGALWAD, TQ: HALIYAL,

NOW RESIDING AT KHB COLONY,

HALILYAL, DIST: U.K.

-

PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. A P HEGDE JANMANE AND

SRI. VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.

BABU HANUMANTH MINDOLKAR

DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1(A) SMT.SHARADA,

W/O NARAYAN KESAREKAR,

AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

R/O KESROLLI, TQ: HALIYAL,

DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

1(B) SRI HANUMANT S/O BABU MINDOLKAR,

AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

1(C) SRI NAMDEV S/O BABU MINDOLKAR,

AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

1(D) SRI SHIVAJI S/O BABU MINDOLKAR,

AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R

CHANDRASHEKAR

LAXMAN

KATTIMANI

Digitally signed by

CHANDRASHEKAR

LAXMAN KATTIMANI

Location: High Court of

Karnataka, Dharwad

Date: 2023.02.07 12:07:19

+0530

- 2 -

WP No. 103071 of 2017

1(E) SRI NAGRAJ S/O BABU MINDOLKAR,

AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

1(B) TO 1(E) R/O KEB ROAD, HULLATTI,

HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

1(F)

SMT.VASANTI W/O NARAYAN GODIMANI,

AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

R/O JOGANKOPPA, TQ: HALIYAL,

DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

1(G) SMT.ANNAPURNA,

W/O NARAYAN MINDOLKAR,

AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

R/O KEB ROAD, HULLATTI,

TQ.: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

1(H) SMT.RENUKA HANUMANT GOUDA,

AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

R/O JANAGA, TQ.:HALIYAL,

DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

-

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. R.V. ITAGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED

ON

I.A.NO.12

DATED:01.12.2016

BY

CIVIL

JUDGE

HALIYAL

IN

EX.PET.NO.18/2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-'G', ISSUE DIRECTION TO

CIVIL

JUDGE

HALIYAL

TO

ISSUE

POSSESSION

WARRANT

IN

EX.PET.NO.18/2012 FORTHWITH & ETC..

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING- B

GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -

WP No. 103071 of 2017

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order

passed on I.A. No. 12 dated 01.12.2016 in E.P. No. 18/2012 on

the file of the Civil Judge, Haliyal whereby the said application

filed by the respondent-judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule

29 CPC seeking stay of further proceedings in the execution

petition till disposal of O.S. No. 22/2016 pending on the file of

the Sr. Civil Judge, Yallapur sitting at Haliyal, was allowed by

the executing Court.

The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are

as follows:

The petitioners herein instituted a suit in O.S. No. 3/1971

against the respondent herein for possession, mesne profits

and other reliefs before the Civil Judge, karwar. The said suit

was subsequently transferred to the Court of Civil Judge,

Haliyal (trial Court) and re-numbered as O.S. No. 79/2003. By

judgment and decree dated 07.09.2006, the trial Court decreed

the suit in favour of the petitioners against the respondents,

thereby directing the respondents to hand over possession of

- 4 -

the suit ‘A’ schedule property to the petitioners within a period

of three months and granted mesne profits in their favour.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the

trial Court, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in R.A.

No. 8/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge, Yallapur. The said

appeal was allowed by the first appellate Court vide judgment

and decree dated 13.12.2007, as a result of which the suit filed

by the petitioners came to be dismissed.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first

appellate Court in R.A. No. 8/2006, the petitioners herein

preferred an appeal in R.S.A. No. 520/2008 before this Court.

By judgment and decree dated 15.07.2011, this Court allowed

the appeal preferred by the petitioners and restored the

judgment and decree of the trial Court, thereby directing the

respondent to hand over possession of the suit schedule

property in favour of the petitioners.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.S.A.

No. 520/2008 dated 15.07.2011, the respondent herein

preferred SLP No. 28413/2012 before the Apex Court. By order

dated 05.10.2012, the Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave

Petition preferred by the respondent, consequent upon which

- 5 -

the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and

confirmed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 528/2008 became

conclusive and binding upon the respondent, who became liable

to quit, deliver and hand over the possession of the suit

schedule property in favour of the petitioners.

Subsequently,

the

petitioners

instituted

execution

proceedings in E.P. No. 18/2012 before the trial Court

(executing Court) to enforce the aforesaid judgment and decree

passed in their favour against the respondent. In the said

execution proceedings, the respondent/ judgment debtor filed

an application under Section 47 CPC seeking dismissal of the

execution petition. The said application was allowed by the

executing Court, aggrieved by which the petitioner approached

this Court in W.P. No. 81052/2013 which was allowed vide

order dated 17.07.2014 and set aside the order passed by the

executing Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/

judgment debtor preferred SLP No. 28181/2014 before the

Apex Court which also came to be rejected vide order dated

03.11.2014 thereby confirming the dismissal of the application

filed by the respondent.

- 6 -

Subsequent to rejection of the aforesaid SLP No.

29181/2014 by the Apex Court, the respondent/judgment

debtor filed the suit in O.S. No. 22/2016 on the file of the Civil

Judge, Yallapur sitting at Haliyal for declaration that the

aforesaid judgment and decree passed in favour of the

petitioners was a nullity and for other reliefs. In this context, it

is relevant to note that the petitioner No.1 executed a

registered gift deed dated 03.07.2014 in favour of the

petitioner No.2 and consequently both of them are continuing

the instant execution proceedings.

3.

During

the

pendency

of

the

aforesaid

execution

p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top