1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.11497 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR K PATHAPPA REDDY
S/O. KAPPADI THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. CHIKKAHALLY VILLAGE,
THALAKU HOBLI,
CHALLAKERE TALUK 577522,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI B THIPPASWAMY DEAD BY LRS
1. NIRMALAMMA
W/O LATE. B THIPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
2 . MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE. B THIPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
(DIED, NO LRS ON 22.01.2017;
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 25.03.2019)
3 . VARUNA
S/O LATE. B THIPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
4 . HANUMAKKA
W/O. BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
5 . BASAPPA @ MUKKANNA
S/O. HANUMANTHAPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
2
(DIED, LEAVING R1, R3 & R4 ARE HIS LEGAL HEIRS.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 25.03.2019)
6 . B KRISHNAREDDY
S/O. BASAPPA @ MUKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
7 . B THIPPAMMA
W/O. LAKSHMANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST AND
R/O. CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHALLAKERE TALUK 577522,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
8 . GOWRAMMA
W/O. CHANDRANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
9 . B SUMA
W/O. RAVEESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
BOTH ARE AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. BODAREDDY HALLI VILLAGE,
CHALLAKERE TALUK 577522,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
R1, R4, R6-R9;
R3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;
R2 DECEASED AND NO LRS;
V/O DATED 25.03.2019, R1, R3 & R4 ARE TREATED
AS LR'S OF DECEASED R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHALLAKERE IN EX
PET NO.18/2015 DTD2.3.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-K
AND ETC.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner being the judgment debtor in Execution No.18/2015, is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dated 2.3.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-K whereby learned Sr. Civil Judge, Challakere has directed the bailiff to assist the Court Commissioner in identifying the property comprised in the counter claim of the respondents that has been decreed.
2. After service of notice, contesting respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as there is absolutely no legally cognizable prejudice occasioned by the impugned order justifying interference in writ jurisdiction. 4
4. It has been a settled position of law that the court exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction u/a 227 of the Constitution of India shall not interfere even when the order is not lawful, if the same has brought about a just result as has happened in this case; what prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the bailiff assists the Court Commissioner in identifying the land in question remains to be an inscrutable mystery.
5. The suit is of the year 2006 and the decree was entered on 27.9.2012 in favour of respondents who had filed the counter claim; petitioner's challenge to the said decree was negatived in two appeals in R.A.Nos.76/2011 & 77/2011 on 6.2.2014; even petitioner's R.S.A.Nos.497/2014 & 685/2014 were also dismissed on 10.7.2014; despite all that, petitioner appears relentlessly trying to workout some ease one or the other way; this is not a happy thing to happen in judicial process.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/-; the learned Judge of the Executing Court is requested to accomplish the execution 5 before the onset of Summer Vacation, 2021, if necessary by invoking the State Power and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE cbc