Sri Parasappa vs Smt.Bagawwa
2021 Latest Caselaw 3121 Kant

                              1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH
         DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
                          BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
              W.P. No. 100024/2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:

SRI PARASAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA NAGANUR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT HUNNUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
                                               -   PETITIONER
(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. BAGAWWA W/O BHIMAPPA NAGANUR,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD,
       C/O DUNDAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA SAVALGI,
       R/AT MARKET GALLI, JAMKHANDI.

2.     KUMARI YALLAWWA D/O BHIMAPPA NAGANUR,
       AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC.: STUDENT,
       C/O DUNDAPPA S/O SIDAPPA SAVALGI,
       R/AT MARKET GALLI, JAMKHANDI.

3.    SRI BHIMAPPA S/O PARASAPPA NAGANUR,
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE,
      R/AT HUNNUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
      DIST. BAGALKOTE.
                                           -    RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI
PASSED IN E.P. NO. 38/2010 DATED 08.12.2016 & ETC.
                              2




     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This writ petition is directed against the impugned

order dated 08.12.2016 passed in E.P. No. 38/2010 by the

learned Prl. Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, directing issue of sale

proclamation as against petitioner-judgment debtor no.2

and respondent No.3-judgment debtor no.1.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and perused the

material on record.

3. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that in

the aforesaid execution proceedings instituted by the

respondents No.1 and 2-decreeholders, the petitioner herein

was arrayed as judgment debtor no.2, while respondent

No.3 was arrayed as judgment debtor no.3. By order dated

26.09.2015, pursuant to a memo filed by the respondents

No.1 and 2-decreeholders, the execution petition was

dismissed as against the petitioner-judgment debtor no.2.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite that

said order continuing execution petition only against

respondent No.3-judgment debtor no.1 and dismissing the

same as against the petitioner-judgment debtor no.2, the

trial Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order

directing issuance of sale proclamation in respect of both

petitioner and respondent No.3, aggrieved by which the

petitioner is before this Court by way of the present writ

petition.

5. As rightly contended by learned counsel for petitioner,

vide order dated 26.09.2015, the respondents No.1 and 2-

decreeholders have given up their claim as against

petitioner/ judgment debtor no.2. Under these undisputed

circumstances, the impugned order directing issuance of

sale proclamation in respect of properties of both the

petitioner-judgment debtor no.2 is hereby set aside.

In the result, I pass the following order.

ORDER

i) writ petition is allowed;

ii) Impugned order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the

trial Court in E.P. No. 39/2010 directing

issuance of sale proclamation is set aside only

insofar as petitioner-judgment debtor no.2 is

concerned;

iii) Needless to state that the impugned order in so

far as it relates to issuance of sale proclamation

as against respondent No.3/ judgment debtor

no.1 is not interfered with by this order.

In view of disposal of the petition, pending IAs stand

disposed of.

SD JUDGE bvv