SMT MUNIRAMAKKA D/O. LATE. CHIKKA @ CHIKKARAMAIAH W/O. DODDAIAH vs SMT DODDAMMA W/O CHANNIGOWDA

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29880

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, J
SMT MUNIRAMAKKA D/O. LATE. CHIKKA @ CHIKKARAMAIAH W/O. DODDAIAH – Appellant
Versus
SMT DODDAMMA W/O CHANNIGOWDA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 1451 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

Important Points

The court determined the impropriety of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, reiterating it does not constitute an execution petition.

Subject

Civil Law - Writ Jurisdiction

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Article 227
Code of Civil Procedure: Order 21 Rule 97

Headnote

This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.10.2024 passed in FDP No. 3/2012 by the I Additional City Civil Judge, Tumakuru, rejecting the IA for impleading as an objector under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The court observed that the application is not maintainable, being neither an execution petition nor applicable in the final decree proceedings. The matter was dismissed but the petitioner was granted liberty to file a necessary application in the final decree proceedings as per law. The application was dismissed but with permission for future action.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH
For the Respondents: SRI. RAVI H K., SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY

Table of Content
1. challenge of lower court order. (Para 1)
2. preliminary objection raised on maintainability. (Para 2 , 3)
3. petition dismissed with liberty for further application. (Para 4)

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the proposed applicant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.10.2024 passed in FDP No.3/2012 by the I Additional City Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, whereby the IA filed by the petitioner for impleading as an objector under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC has been rejected.

2. Sri Ravi H.K., the learned counsel who undertakes to appear for respondent Nos.16, 17 and 18 has raised a preliminary objection stating that the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC as an objector in the final decree proceedings is not maintainable, it is not an execution petition. Hence he sought for dismissal of the petition.

3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition may be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application in final decree proceedings.

4. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file necessary application in the final decree proceedings, in accordance with law, if law permits.