1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.19363 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
c/w
WRIT PETITION No.9880 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
IN W.P.No.19363/2019
BETWEEN:
1. GSSS CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
NO.9, SHREE GANESH BUILDING ,
4H CROSS, LINK ROAD
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560003
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SRI SHANKARA SHENOY A.
&PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. RAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. ASHOK SHIVRAJ GONI
S/O SHIVARAJ KUBERAPPA GONI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.18/1, 5TH MAIN
MUNIRAMAPPA GARDEN,
GEDDALAHALLI, SANJAYNAGARA,
BENGALURU-560094
2. SRI BABU RAO CHINCHORE
S/O REVANNASIDDAPPA CHINCHORE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2
R/AT NO.58,SRI SAI RESIDENCY
VINAYAKA NAGARA, 2ND CROSS
HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024
3. SMT SANDHYA GONI
W/O ASHOK SHIVRAJ GONI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.TF-302,
NO.2, AJANTA APARTMENTS
N N FARMS,40 FT ROAD
SANJAYANAGARA, RMV 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560094
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.R. KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 IS
ABSENT. V/O DATED 04.08.2022, R1 SERVICE H/S)
THIS
WRIT
PETITION
IS
FILED
UNDER
227B
OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.03.2019 PASSED ON I.A. U/O 21
RULE 59 R/W SECTION 151 CPC IN EX.NO.2637/2018 BY THE
HONBLE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU
9CCH-67) AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT
THE IA FILED BY THE OBJECTOR / R-3 U/O 21 R 97 AND 98 OF
CPC IN EX.CASE NO.2637/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-D HOLDING
THAT THERE IS NO LEGALLY RELEVANT TRIABLE POINT FOR
ADJUDICATION
IN W.P.No.9880/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ASHOK SHIVARAJ GONI
S/O SHIVRAJKUBERAPPA GONI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.MF-M-01,
GONIFAIRFIELD APARTMENTS,
NO.52, 40 FT ROAD,
N.N.FARMS, SANJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 094.
&PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
1. GSSS CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
NO.9,SRI GANESH BUILDING,
4TH CROSS,LINK ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
MR SHANKAR SHENOY
2. SRI BABU RAO CHINCHORE
S/O REVANNASIDHAPPPACHINCHORE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.58,SRI SAI RESIDENCY
VINAYAKANAGARA, 2ND CROSS,HEBBAL
BENGALURU-560 024
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. RAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O.
DTD.04.08.2022 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
EXECUTION CASE NO.2637/2018, ON THE FILE OF 66TH ADDL.
CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-
67);
QUASH
THE
DATED
22.01.2019/23.01.2019
(ANNEXURE-D) PASSED IN EXECUTION CASE NO.2637/2018, ON
THE FILE OF 66TH ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGLORE (CCH-67) BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF
SALE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two writ petitions arise out of the order passed
in Ex.C.No.2637/2018 pending on the file of Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-67) and therefore
they are heard together and disposed of by a common order
4
with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2.
Facts leading to filing of these two petitions
narrated in brief are, the petitioner in W.P.No.19363/2019
had filed Ex.C.No.2367/2018 before the Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as
execution Court) to execute the award dated 06.12.2016
passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Chamrajpet, Bengaluru against respondents no.1 and 2
herein.
3.
In the said proceedings the third respondent who
is the wife of the first respondent herein had filed two
separate applications under Order 21 Rule 59 read with
Section 151 of CPC and under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 read
with Section 151 of CPC. The said applications were
opposed by the decree holder/petitioner herein. However,
executing Court had allowed the application filed under
Order 21 Rule 59 read with 151 of CPC and proceeded to
hold an enquiry on the applications filed by respondent no.3
5
herein under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 of CPC and being
aggrieved by the said order dated 02.03.2019, the decree
holder has filed W.P.No.19363/2019.
4.
W.P.No.9880/2019 has been filed by the first
judgment
debtor
challenging
order
dated
22.01.2019/23.01.2019 in execution case No.2637/2018 by
the executing Court as per Annexure -B, on the ground that
the said order issuing proclamation and sale warrant of the
mortgaged property has been passed without fixing the
valuation and without passing order of attachment in
respect of the said property.
5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
in
W.P.No.19363/2019 submits that the third respondent is
none other than the wife of the first respondent who is the
judgment debtor no.1 and she has not claimed any
independent right over the mortgaged property, in respect
of which she has raised obstruction before the execution
court under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. He submits that
unless the obstructer has got an independent right over the
6
property of which possession is sought to be taken by the
decree holder, the executing Court was not justified in
entertaining such an application. He submits that the third
respondent who is none other than wife of the first
respondent has not placed any material before the
execution Court to show that she has got independent right
over the property, which is sought to be brought for sale. In
support of his contentions he has relied upon the judgment
of coordinate Bench of this Court in case of SULOCHANA
W/O.
RAMARAY
VERNEKAR
AND
OTHERS
VS.
DEVAPPA BADIGEPPA HUDELAKOPPA AND OTHERS
reported in 2021 (2) KLR 310 and in the judgment passed
by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.04.2016 in
RFA No.1412/2011.
6.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
respondent no.3 has raised preliminary objection with
regard to the maintainability of this writ petition on the
ground that petitioner ought to have preferred revision
under Section 115 of CPC and writ petition as against the
7
impugned order is not maintainable. He has relied upon the
judgment in the case of SHIV SHAKTI COOP.HOUSING
SOCIETY, NAGPUR VS. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS AND
OTHERS reported in 2003 (6) SCC 659, in support of his
arguments. He further submits that the award passed in
favour of the petitioner is a collusive award and execution
has now been filed only with a sole intention to dispossess
the third respondent to whom the property in question has
been given by her husband/judgment debtor no.1 for her
maintenance
purpose.
He
submits
that
the
third
re
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.