I scl29tRPtlcgt2025 ,,3XT.::Jl'g: li ; 333!

: :

BEFORE THE KART{ATAKA STATE CONSU]IIER DISPUTES REpRESSAL COH HISSTON. BEI{GALURU (pRrNCrpAL BENCH )

DATED: O4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 PRESENT CORAII: HON'BLE l,tr. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA -

PR.ESIDENT and MTs. DIWASHR.EE ItI - LADY iIEiIBER scl29tRPl09t2(J2s

1) Mrs. Uma Suresh, Wo. ^Mr.Suresh.G, Aged About 67 years, Vo. ^No.212, 5s Main, 10s Cross, NGEF Layout, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore-560 072.

2) Mr. Suresh G, S/o. Ganesh Naig, Aged About 69 Years, R/at: No.212, sth Main, 10s Cross, NGEF Layout, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore-560 O72.

(Rep. by Mrc. Shalini A Hasina!, .....Petitioner/s.

Advocate)

'Yls -

sct29lRPtogt2025 Mr. Manirama Murthy, S/o. Not known, Aged About Major, R/at: No.249, 2nd A Main, 2nd Block, 4th stage, Vinayaka Layout, Nagarabhavi, Bengaturu-5 60072.

(Rep. by par$ In-person)

.....Respondent/s.

ORAL ORDER (PER: HOI{,BLE ITIT. JUSTIGE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GowDA, PRESIDENT)

This Revision petition is filed Under Section 47 (t)(b)

of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 challenging the order dated: 04.L2.2024 passed by the Bengaluru principal Urban District Commission (in short the District Commission)

on the Memo of Calculation filed by the DHR in Execution Petition No.168/2017.

2.

The Appeilant No.1 is the DHR in EA No.14 4/2024 (old EA No.06/201g) and Appeilant No.2 is the DHR in E.A.No.14512024 (old EA No.022018)

and the Respondent is the DHR in EA No.16B/2Ot7.

3.

The Appellants and as well as the Respondent have filed a compraint against M/s. K.R.K. proprieties private scl29lRPltJgl2lJ2s Limited, No.215, 5s Cross, 3d Main, Behind ITI Layout, Geology Layout, Bangalore-56, to recover the money claimed in the respective petitions. For common disposal of all these petitions the Appellants have preferred the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.18116/2022 (GM-RES). Order was passed in the Writ Petition on 28.06.2023. Against the said Order the present Revision Petitioners have preferred the Writ Appeal in WA No.906/2023 (GM-RES). By Order dated: 22.09.2023 the Writ Appeal was disposed-off with a direction to the District Commission to take up the execution application filed by the Revision Petitioner as well as the Respondent and to dispose-off together by applying the principles of ratable distribution.

4. In view of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka the District Commission has clubbed the EA Nos.143/2024, L4412024, 145/2024 and EP No.168/2017. In the said proceedings the DHRs have filed their own Memo of Calculations claiming Rs.53,89,998/-, and Rs.53,89,998/-, Rs.37,03,012/- Rs.L7,75,40L/- respectively. The Memo of Calculation filed by the Respondent being the DHR in EP No.158/2017 has been objected by the DHRs in the other petitions claiming that, he has already received several amounts and he is not entitled for so much of money and he is only entitled to a sct29tRPtO9t2o.2I5 sum of Rs.7,54,531.40. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and by doing its own calculation held that, the said DHRs respectively are entifled to Rs.55,01,980/-, Rs.55,O1,9gO/-, Rs.37,O3,OLZ/_

and Rs.17,53,268/-. Aggrieved by the said order the DHRs in EA Nos.144 &. L4S/2024 have filed the present revision petition.

5.

We have heard the argument of Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and the Respondent party in_

person. 6. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitions that, the JDR in all the four cases are one and the same. The properties of the IDR was attached and attachment warrant has been sent to the Thasildhar for recovery of the amount. In order to apply the principle of ratable distribution if the District commission holds that, the Respondent is entifled for Rs.L7,75,401/- they will be deprived-off their entitlement. The money due to them as the property that will realize after the public auction will be lesser and ratable distribution cannot be applied for Rs.L7,75,4OL/-. At most it could only be applied to an extent o