IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.105000/2014 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

MAKBOOL AHAMAD,

S/O ABDUL HAI URF PACCHASAB SARKAZI,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

OCC: PATTY BUSINESS,

R/O. BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON,

DIST: HAVERI.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

CHANDRAU GURAPPA YELIGAR,

AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER,

R/O. BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON,

DIST: HAVERI.

2.

MAHAMMAD HANIF S/O BABUSAB MULLA,

AGE: 39 YEARS,

OCC: DRIVER OF TRUCK MYU 7(MINI)

R/O KALA ONI, NEAR JAMARASI WELL,

BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.

3.

MAKBULSAB S/O ABDULHYDERSAHEB KAZI,

AGE: 53 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,

OWNER OF MINI TRUCK MY-7

R/O NEW BAZAR BANKAPUR

TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.S.PATIL, ADV.FOR R1; R2 ABATED;

NOTICE TO R3 SERVED)

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

DIRECT THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT

HAVERI NOT TO EXECUTE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF MVC

NO.374/1995,

IN

EX.PET.62/2004

AGAINST

THE

PETITIONER WHO IS NOT JUDGMENT DEBTOR; SET ASIDE

THE

ORDER

DATED

09.12.2013

VIDE

ANNEXURE-M

PASSED

BY

PRL.SENIOR

CIVIL

JUDGE

HAVERI,

IN

EX.PET.NO.62/2004 AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO HEAR

I.A.NO.7 APPLICATION AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is directed against the impugned

order dated 09.12.2013 passed in Execution Petition

No.62/2004 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Haveri.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the

material on record.

3.

Pursuant to the judgment and award dated

13.02.2001 passed in MVC No.374/1995 filed by

respondent No.1, execution proceedings in Execution

Petition No.62/2004 were initiated by respondent

No.1 to enforce the said judgment and award. In the

3

execution

proceedings,

defendants

in

MVC

No.374/1995 were arrayed as judgment debtors. In

the said execution proceedings, there was a direction

issued by the trial court directing the attachment of

movables of the judgment debtors. It is the grievance

of the petitioner that despite him not being a party to

the claim petition or the award passed therein, or the

execution proceedings, Bailiff appointed by the court

was

trying

to

attach

his

movables

though

the

petitioner has nothing to do with either award or

execution proceedings. Under these circumstances,

the petitioner filed an application-I.A.No.7 before the

trial court in the said execution proceedings to recall

the said order of attachment of movables. It is

further submitted that despite the said application-

I.A.No.7 filed by the petitioner, the trial court

committed an error in keeping the said application in

abeyance and proceeded to pass the impugned order

directing the attachment of movables, aggrieved by

4

which, the petitioner is before this court by way of

present petition.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.1-decree holder submits that there is no merit in

the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Though

several

contentions

have

been

urged by both sides in respect of their respective

claims, having regard to the fact that the petitioner

herein had filed I.A.No.7 before the executing court

putting forth several claims and contentions which

had to be dealt with and decided in accordance with

law after conducting necessary enquiry, the trial

court

clearly

fell

in

error

in

keeping

the

said

application

in

abeyance

and

has

erroneously

proceeded to direct execution of attachment warrant

without

considering

or

disposing

of

the

said

application-I.A.No.7 and as such, the impugned order

passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside.

5

6.

In the result, I pass th