Karnataka High Court
Sadashiv S/O Hanamant Dodamani vs Ashok S/O Hanamant Dodamani on 28 February, 2022
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION No.100275/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SADASHIV S/O HANAMANT DODAMANI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIMMAD,
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN: 587312.
(PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO.184/2021)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ASHOK S/O HANAMANT DODAMANI
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIMMAD
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN: 587312.
2. PARASHAPPA S/O HANAMANT DODAMANI
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHIMMAD
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN: 587312.
3. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O BHIMAPPA MANG
AGE: 53 YEARS,
:2:
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. GOLABHAVI
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN: 587315.
4. SMT. LAKKAVVA W/O MAHADEV MADAR
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SARAPUR
TQ. HUKKERI
DIST: BELAGAVI
PIN: 591305.
5. RAMESH ALIAS RAMAPPA
S/O TAMMANNA TELI
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HUNNUR,
TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
PIN: 587119.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
8/11/2021 IN EP NO.24/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC BANAHATTI PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE.G.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the
following reliefs:
(a) To issue writ in the nature of certiorari by
quashing the order dated 08.11.2021 in
E.P.No.24/2014 pending on the file of the
Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Banahatti,
produced vide Annexure-G.
(b) To pass any other order, direction as deemed
fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. Execution Petition No.24/2015 was filed seeking for
enforcing and executing the decree passed in
O.S.No.104/2013, which has been filed by the
respondent No.5 herein.
3. Specific performance of an agreement dated
13.04.2011 has been ordered vide Judgment dated
21.04.2014 and decree came to be drawn on
26.04.2014, in pursuance of which the execution
petition has been filed. Subsequent to the
execution petition being filed, the petitioner claims
to have filed a suit in O.S.No.184/2021 for partition
and it is on that basis, it is contended that the
Execution Petition No.24/2014 cannot be proceeded
with and the delivery warrant cannot be executed.
4. Admittedly, the Judgment was passed on
21.04.2014 and the decree was drawn on
26.04.2014 and the execution petition has been
pending from the year 2014 and the suit for
partition has been filed in the year 2021 claiming
that the property is a joint family property. If at all,
the petitioners were to succeed in the said suit,
they could always seek for restoration. In that view
of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere
in the order passed by the trial Court.
5. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits, stands
dismissed with the above observation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*Svh/-
