Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1543
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 21042 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 25531 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
IN WP NO. 21042/2023 BETWEEN:
SMT. SUSHMA, D/O LATE RAJU, W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR L.C, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/OF LALANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARAJAPURA POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU - 571 602.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA AND:
BAI Location:
High Court of Karnataka 1. SMT. M.P. JAGADAMBA, W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK.
2. SMT. SUVARNAMMA, W/O LATE GURULINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK.
3. SMT. PREMA, D/O LATE GURULINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (D GROUP EMPLOYEE MYSURU UNIVERSITY), R/AT D. NO.L-68, 5TH CROSS, J.C. ROAD, GANGOTHRI QUARTERS, MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSURU.
4. SMT. MANGALAMMA, W/O LATE VISHWA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. H.K. RENUKAPRASAD, S/O LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 6. H.K. REKHA, D/O LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 7. SMT. KOMALA, D/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 8. SUMA, D/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 9. SMT. NEELAMBIKA, W/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 10. H.K. GURUPRASAD, S/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 11. H.R. SHILPA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O LATE REVANNA, THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 11 ARE R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 129, MYSORE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2024 NOTICE TO R2 TO R11 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION AT NANJANGUD ALLOWING IA NO. I ON THE FILE OF EXECUTION PETITION NO. 19/2020 DATED 04/08/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC., IN WP NO. 25531/2022 BETWEEN:
SMT. SUSHMA, D/O LATE RAJU, W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR L.C, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/OF LALANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARAJAPURA POST, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU - 571 602.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. M.P. JAGADAMBA, W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK.
2. SMT. SUVARNAMMA, W/O LATE GURULINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK.
3. SMT. PREMA, D/O LATE GURULINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (D GROUP EMPLOYEE MYSURU UNIVERSITY), R/AT D. NO.L-68, 5TH CROSS, J.C. ROAD, GANGOTHRI QUARTERS, MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSURU.
4. SMT. MANGALAMMA, W/O LATE VISHWA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 5. H.K. RENUKAPRASAD, S/O LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 6. H.K. REKHA, D/O LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 7. SMT. KOMALA, D/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 8. SUMA, D/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 9. SMT. NEELAMBIKA, W/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 10. H.K. GURUPRASAD, S/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 11. H.R. SHILPA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O LATE REVANNA, THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 11 ARE R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 129.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2024 NOTICE TO R2 TO R11 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING i) TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN EXECUTION NO. 19/2020 ON THE FILE HONBLE II ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC , AT NANJANGUD.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.54/2017 against the petitioner herein, which was a suit for specific performance. It is submitted that the petitioner was placed Ex-parte and that the suit has been decreed in favour of respondent No.1 herein. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Ex.No.19/2020 for executing the decree passed in O.S.No.54/2017. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein filed Mis.No.10/2020 with a prayer to set aside the Ex- parte order filed against her in O.S.No.54/2017 and give her an opportunity to contest O.S.No.54/2017. However, no orders have been passed so far in the said Miscellaneous Petition, even in respect of condoning the delay in filing the said Miscellaneous Petition or staying further proceedings pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.54/2017.
2. In the meanwhile, the Executing Court in Ex.No.19/2020 has proceeded against the judgment debtor. Hence, the petitioner preferred an application for stay of further proceedings in Ex.No.19/2020, which has been rejected and a Court Commissioner has also been appointed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the decree holder. Aggrieved by the same, the aforementioned writ petitions have been filed.
3. In W.P.No.25531/2022, the order of the Execution Court refusing to stay further proceedings has been challenged and in W.P.No.21042/2023, the order of appointment of the Court Commissioner has been challenged.
4. The case of the petitioner is that she did not have an opportunity to defend her case in O.S.No.54/2017 and if further proceedings in Ex.No.19/2020 is not stayed, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner, though she has filed Mis.No.10/2020, has chosen not to contest the matter vigorously and is delaying the same deliberately, because of which the applications filed for condonation of delay and for stay of the decree passed in O.S.No.54/2017 have not been considered by the trial Court. For that reason, she justifies the orders passed by the Executing Court and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has not cared to pursue Mis.No.10/2020 earnestly.
7. It is not in dispute that no interim orders were passed in Mis.No.10/2020 wherein the delay in filing the petition has been condoned or there is any stay granted against the execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.54/2017. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the same. She has not preferred any writ petition to direct Mis.No.10/2020 to be heard expeditiously or the Interlocutory Applications filed therein to be decided expeditiously. On the other hand, the petitioner is doing her best to thwart the Executing Court from executing the decree passed in O.S.No.54/2017. This action of the petitioner cannot be appreciated and this Court has to conclude that the petitioner is only trying to delay the Executing Court executing the decree passed in O.S.No.54/2017 and she is not interested in defending her rights and taking an order on merits in Mis No.10/2020.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Executing Court and accordingly, the Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed.
Any of the observations made herein above will not come in the way of any decision to be taken in Mis.No.10/2020 and the trial Court shall decide the same based on the materials placed before it.
