M/S. Devagiri Estate vs Krishna
2021 Latest Caselaw 5952 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5952 Kant
Judgement Date : 10 December, 2021

Karnataka High Court

M/S. Devagiri Estate vs Krishna on 10 December, 2021

Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad

   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.46937/2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

    M/S. DEVAGIRI ESTATE
    ATTIGIRI VILLAGE, SANTHAVERI POST,
    CHIKMAGALUR - 577 137
    REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
    SURESH S P
    S/O LATE V.C. PUTTARAJEGOWDA
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
                                         ...PETITIONER

(By Sri. MOIDEEN ARAFAT ADVOCATE FOR
     Sri.SACHIN B. S. ADVOCATE)

AND:

    KRISHNA
    S/O DODDA THIMMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
    R/AT KAMBITHALLI, THORANGALA POST
    LINGADAHALLI HOBLI
    TARIKERE TALUK,
    CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 137

                                       ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri. VINOD GOWDA ADVOCATE)

   THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE    CONSTITUTION     OF    INDIA   PRAYING    TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2019
                                   2



PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN EXECUTION CASE NO.50 OF 2018
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
CHIKKAMAGALURU        VIDE    ANNEXIRE-A,    AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.3 AS PRAYED FOR & ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                           ORDER

The petitioner is the judgment debtor in Execution

Petition No.50/2018 on the file of the Principal Senior

Civil Judge and C.J.M., Chikkamagaluru [for short, 'the

executing Court']. The petitioner has impugned the

executing Court's order dated 05.08.2019. The

executing Court by this Order has rejected the

petitioner's application [I.A. No.3] to implead certain

persons.

2. The petitioner's application is supported by a

memorandum of facts, which in its material part, reads

as under:

"It is submitted that the present Judgement Debtor had purchased land from the proposed Judgement Debtors Nos.2 to 16 mentioned in the annexed

application in individual capacity. This Judgment Debtor never purchased the said Devagiri Estate nor they have not purchased the firm also. It is submitted that they have purchased land belonged to individual persons who are named as proposed Judgement Debtor in the annexed application.

Now the Decree holder made the Devagiri Estate as the only Judgement Debtor. Actually they have to make proposed Judgement Debtors Nos.2 to 16 as proposed Judgement Debtors besides one Sri. Uday Pai who is proposed Judgement Debtor No.2 is appeared in original side and also before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.No.7105/2010 and he had defended the case. Hence proposed Judgement Debtors are only liable to pay the decreed amount."

3. The executing Court has rejected the

petitioner's application referring to this Court's order in

M.F.A. No.7105/2010 [WC] and opining that in terms of

this Court's order dated 24.01.2014 the petitioner-

judgment debtor must satisfy the decree. The executing

Court has rejected the petitioner's contention that the

executing Court has no jurisdiction because the

respondent-claimant resides at Tarikere Taluk,

Chikkamagaluru.

4. The respondent has suffered injuries while

working in an Estate under a Contractor. He has filed a

claim petition under the Employee's Compensation Act,

1923, which is allowed. When the order by the

Employee's Compensation Commissioner is challenged

before this Court in M.F.A. No.7105/2010, this Court

has disposed of the appeal by the order dated

24.01.2014. The operative portion of the order of this

Court reads as under:

"The order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation stands modified. The appellant/Insurance (sic. Insurance company) is exonerated from paying compensation to the claimant. Respondent No.3-Devagiri Estate, Shanthaveri post, Lingadahalli hobli, Tharikere taluk, Chickmagalur, is directed to pay the award amount to the claimant within four weeks from

the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount deposited by the insurance company before this Court is ordered to be refunded."

5. The petitioner's case is that the proposed

respondents will have to be impleaded as judgment

debtors to answer the respondent's claim because they

as partners of the Firm have transferred certain assets.

However, the petitioner's application does not even

mention the materials to justify how the liability is

deflected because of certain transfer; the petitioner does

not disclose its constitution or its reconstitution. Even

this petition is silent in this regard. In the light of this

Court's order in M.F.A. No.7105/2010 the Petitioner

cannot pass on the liability to certain third parties

seeking their impleadment.