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