IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 271 OF 2020 (EX)

BETWEEN:

MR.KRISHNAN MENON AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE CDR M K K MENON, NO.367, 11^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, RT NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.194, 9^TH CROSS, HMT LAYOUT, RT NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. VICTOR MANOHARAN S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS.SANHEETA VED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS Digitally W/O VED MANU MOOLA signed by SUMA B N NO 39/3 (NEW NO 9)

Location: LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

HIGH COURT OF …RESPONDENT KARNATAKA (BY SRI. B.S. SHREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2020 PASSED IN EX.NO.1842/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY HOLDING THAT THE EXECUTION PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE AND THE DECREE PASSED IN OS.NO.10245/2005 HAS REMAINED UNSATISFIED AND THE JDR IS LIABLE TO PAY THE DECRETAL AMOUNT ALONG WITH COSTS AND INTEREST.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Victor Manoharan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.B.S.Shreenivas, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent.

2. Judgment debtor is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No.1842/2012.

3. Facts in a nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are that Judgment debtor objected for the recovery of the decreetal amount involved in the Execution case No.1842/2012 pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.10245/2005.

4. Judgment debtor contended that in respect of 14 cheques, there was dispute between the parties and in respect of 12 cheques, in respect of all the cheques, there was a settlement before the Hon'ble Apex Court while judgment debtor challenging the order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.871 to 877/2010 and as such, no other amount is payable by the Judgment debtor to the Decree Holder.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contended that the settlement was only with regard to the 12 cheques which was subject matter of the Criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. But the cheques involved in O.S.No.10245/2005 were not subject matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it very clear that the settlement was only in respect of 12 cheques and not the 14 cheques. Therefore, objection raised by the Judgment debtor is rightly dismissed by the trial Court and proceeded with the recovery of the balance amount.

6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the settlement that took place between the parties is only in respect of 12 cheques which were subject matters of criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was also subject matter of Criminal Appeals before this Court in 871 to 877/2010.

7. As such, settlement arrived between the parties is only in respect of 12 cheques. The subject matter of suit in O.S.No.10245/2005 is in respect of remaining two cheques, which was not part of the settlement before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, decree that has become final is being executed in Execution Case No.1842/2012 has to continue which is the finding recorded by the learned trial judge while dismissing the objection of the judgment debtor is just and proper, which requires no further interference by this Court.

8. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) Revision petition is dismissed.

(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the Decree Holder under due identification and for the balance amount execution to continue.

Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA)

JUDGE SBN List No.: 1