1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.14517 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1 . SRI. P. SUBRAMANYAM
S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2 . SMT. P. GANGA BHAVANI,
W/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
3 . SRI. P. RAMACHANDRA RAO,
S/O VASANTHA RAYUDU,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.65-17-4,
KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI STREET,
DWARAKA NAGAR, KANDAYAPALAM,
KAKINADA,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533003. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. P. AISHWARYA LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.F-2, GREEN COMFORT APARTMENT,
ANJENEYA TEMPLE STREET,
BYRASANDRA C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560093. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE A DATED 05.03.2018,
REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS TO THE EXECUTION PETITION
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII
2
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
AND ALLOW THE OBJECTIONS AS PRAYED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners being the judgment debtors, are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 5.3.2020 (wrongly mentioned as 5.3.2018), a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby their resistance to the execution proceedings in Execution No.2935/2018 has been negatived by the learned XXXVII Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-38), Bangalore city.
2. After service of notice, the first respondent having entered appearance through her counsel, opposes the writ petition making vehement submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it is 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 because: 3
(a) In the Compromise Petition dated 3.9.2012 filed by the petitioners and respondent herein, para 6 reads as under:
"The Defendant No.2 has agreed to execute a gift deed in respect of the property bearing No.83-436- 23/1-F2 (PID number) to transfer the said property in favour of her grand-daughter, i.e., P. Vaishnavi Santhoshi Srivani, (Plaintiff No.2 herein) and it is agreed that the Plaintiff No.1 and the Defendant No.1 shall be the joint guardians of the child with respect to the above-stated property. The gifting of the property (PID No.83-436-23/1-F2) shall be done upon the withdrawal of all the civil suits, the compounding of the criminal cases and the divorce decree whichever is last. In case the Defendant No.2 fails to execute the gift deed within one week after the withdrawal/settlement of the civil and criminal cases and the passing of the decree of divorce, the Plaintiffs can seek execution and registration of the said gift deed by filing an Execution Petition and for that, the Defendants No.1 and 2 shall not have any objection."
(b) It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in terms of this settlement, all criminal cases have been withdrawn by her which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners although he points out that this withdrawal happened belatedly in the year 2018 with the involvement of both the sides; and
(c) Granting relief to the petitioners in the Writ Petition virtually amounts to altering the terms of settlement 4 between the parties which courts would not ordinarily do in the absence of cogent grounds therefor; courts do not re-write the agreements/compromises which the parties have consciously concluded between them.
In the above circumstances, Writ Petition is rejected; a request is made to the learned Judge of the court below to accomplish the execution within a period of three months and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE cbc