- 1 -
WP No. 102158 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 102158 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
DADA S/O BALU ROOGE
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O: BHOJ-591263
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI
2.
SMT. VASUNDARA
W/O DADA ROOGE
AGE: 47 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O: BHOJ-591263
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI
&PETITIONERS
(BY MS. SURABHI RAVINDRA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
APPASAHEB S/O KIRAN KESTE
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: BHOJ-591263
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI
2.
SURESH S/O. NEMGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: BHOJ-591263
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN P. BOLAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
®
Digitally signed
by POORNIMA
SHIVANNA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WP No. 102158 of 2021
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE
DATED
23.04.2021
IN
ALLOWING
IA
NO.2
CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE DELIVERY WARRANT ISSUED IN EP
NO.73/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CHIKKODI, VIDE ANNEXURE-J.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.4.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a.
Issue a writ or direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing the Order dated 23.04.2021 in allowing IA
No.2. Consequently, quash the delivery warrant
issued in EP No.73/2014 on the file of Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Chikkodi, vide Annexure-J.
b.
Issue any other writ or direction which this Hon9ble
deems fit to meet the ends of justice.
Brief facts of the case are:
2.1. The
petitioners
are
Judgment
debtors
and
respondents are decree holders in Execution
Petition No.73/2014 pending on the file of the Prl.
Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi.
2.2. The respondents who are plaintiffs had filed a suit
against the petitioners in O.S.No.65/2010 before
the Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi seeking for a decree
- 3 -
of specific performance and a direction to the
petitioners herein to execute a sale deed in respect
of the suit land as per the agreement of sale dated
29.03.2008.
2.3. Though
the
petitioners
entered
appearance
through their counsel, the petitioners allege that
due to the mistake on part of the counsel, written
statement on behalf of petitioners was not filed, the
suit proceeded to trial and the trial Court decreed
the suit vide Judgment dated 26.06.2013 in
pursuance of which a decree was drawn up.
2.4. The petitioners filed Mis. No.60/2014 under Order
9 Rule 13 of CPC seeking for setting aside the
Judgment and decree dated 26.06.2013 which also
came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on
9.08.2017. Prior to the dismissal of Mis. Petition
No.60/2014, the respondents filed Execution
proceedings in E.P.No.73/2014. The petitioners
thereafter filed first appeal in RFA No.100033/2021
- 4 -
on 12.01.2021 challenging the judgment and
decree passed in O.S No. 65/2010. Though the said
RFA is pending, there is no stay of the execution
proceedings ordered in the said appeal.
2.5. The petitioners on being served in the execution
proceedings, entered appearance through their
counsel,
petitioner
No.1
filed
statement
of
objections to the execution petition which came to
be adopted by petitioner No.2 by filing a memo.
Petitioner No.1 had also filed additional objections
subsequently.
2.6. In the Statement of objections, petitioner No.1 has
contended as under:
2.6.1. The advocate engaged by the petitioners earlier
in O.S No.65/2010 had colluded with the
respondents herein. The said advocate failed to
file written statement and the suit came to be
decreed ex-parte which came to the knowledge
of the petitioners only on 05-09-2014, as they
are illiterates and relied on the advocate.
- 5 -
2.6.2. The respondents are in money lending business
under the style and name M/s Dhanalaxmi
Finance Corporation and M/s Laxmi Finance
Corporation. The petitioners have borrowed
money from these business and has no intention
of selling the suit property.
2.6.3. The present valuation of the suit property is
more than a crore rupees.
2.6.4. Since there is no specific prayer for relief of
possession, the right to possession does not
accrue to the respondents.
2.6.5. The suit land is in the name of one Marudevi who
has not been impleaded in the suit as such she
is not bound by the decree consequently the
respondents are not entitled to the suit
property.
3.
Respondents
filed
IA-1
in
the
said
execution
proceedings
seeking
appointment
of
Court
Commissioner to execute a registered sale deed in
- 6 -
favour of respondents. The said application came to be
allowed on 30.08.2018.
4.
The Execution Court taking note of the fact that a draft
sale deed has been furnished and no objections have
been filed by the petitioners was of the opinion that in
terms of the
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.