Smt. Susheelamma vs Karnataka State Financial ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5939 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

       WRIT PETITION NO.20518/2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA,
W/O LATE SATHYAPREMA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
PROPRIETRIX: M/S RASHI INDUSTRIES,
R/AT NO.44, 'SUMUKHA',
5TH 'B' CROSS, 8TH BLOCK,
II STAGE, MALAGALA VILLAGE,
NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560 091.

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.8,
'DARSHAN NILAYA', NEAR MALAGALA BUS STOP,
MALAGALA, 22ND MAIN ROAD,
NAGARABHAVI II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 091.                    ...PETITIONER

           (BY SRI HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
       OFFICE AT NO.48,
       1ST FLOOR, CHURCH STREET,
       BENGALURU-560 001.

2.     SMT. SHARADHAMMA,
       W/O LATE A. MADAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.44, 'SUMUKHA',
       5TH 'B' CROSS, 8TH BLOCK,
                          2



     II STAGE, MALAGALA VILLAGE,
     NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560 079.

3.   SRI B.S. SHIVA KUMAR,
     W/O LATE SATHYAPREMA,
     AGED MAJOR,
     R/AT NO.555, 2ND 'B' MAIN,
     5TH 'B' CROSS, 8TH BLOCK,
     II STAGE, 11TH BLOCK,
     NAGARBHAVI, BENGLAURU-560 076.

4.   SRI B.S. DHANANJAYA,
     S/O LATE SATHYAPREMA,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
     NO.44, 'SUMUKHA',
     5TH 'B' CROSS, 8TH BLOCK,
     II STAGE, MALAGALA VILLAGE,
     NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560 079.

5.   SRI B.S. MANJUNATH,
     S/O LATE SATHYAPREMA,
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.3-1, 4TH CROSS,
     RAJAJINAGAR,
     BENGALURU-560 010.            ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH    THE     EXECUTION     PETITION  NO.43/2013
PRESENTED ON 12.11.2013 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
HEREIN AND WHICH IS PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-E AND DIRECT THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA TO CONSIDER THE
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
AS AN ANNEXURE-G AND H IN EXECUTION PETITION
NO.43/2013.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3



                         ORDER

One of the Judgment debtors in Execution Case

No.43/2013 has impugned the initiation of the

execution proceedings in Execution Case No.43/2013

on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Ramanagara [for short, 'the executing Court']

after the final orders in Misc.No.174/2005, a proceeding

under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial

Corporation Act, 1951.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner has filed an application

under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[for short, 'the CPC'] for dismissal of the execution

proceedings contending that the executing Court has no

jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings and

the first respondent's remedy, if any, could only be

under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation

Act, 1951. This application and the first respondent's

application for stay of the further proceedings are

pending consideration. The learned counsel further

submits that the executing Court, despite the same has

recently issued warrant for attachment of the

petitioner's property. Therefore, this Court must

intervene.

3. It is seen from the records that the

petitioner's applications are filed in the year 2014 and

arrest warrant is issued in the year 2017 and

ultimately, warrant for attachment of property is issued.

Further, the records do not indicate that the petitioner

has made any request for consideration of pending

applications or for recall of the orders for issuance of

arrest or for attachment.

4. This Court, with the question of jurisdiction

yet to be decided by the Executing Court and in the

light of the petitioner's conduct, is not persuaded to

interfere. The petitioner could always file necessary

application for recall of the warrant for attachment, and

if such application is filed the executing Court must

consider the same in the light of the ground urged

before proceeding further with any precipitative action.

The executing Court must decide on such application

expeditiously and in any event within a period of 6 [six]

weeks.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD