Mahadevaswamy vs Lalithamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 10238 Kant

                        1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

      WRIT PETITION NO.17575 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

MAHADEVASWAMY
S/O MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PALYA VILLAGE
KOLLEGAL TALUK
CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT - 571440

                                      ...PETITIONER

(BY SMT.P.C.SUNITHA, ADVOCATE)

AND

LALITHAMMA
W/O B.M.SUNDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT PALYA VILLAGE
KOLLEGALA TALUK
CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT - 571440

                                    .....RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.S.VISHVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
                                 2



LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE ANDD JMFC, KOLLEGALA IN
EX.NO.7/2009 DATED 24.02.2015 VIDE ANNEX-E AND
ETC.,


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


                              ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the

petitioner - Judgment Debtor feeling aggrieved by the

order dated 24.02.2015 passed in Execution

No.7/2009.

2. The respondent - Decree Holder has instituted

two recovery suits in O.S.No.185/1999 and

O.S.No.122/1999. Both suits were decreed and the

respondent - Decree Holder filed two execution

petitions. In pending execution petitions, the present

petitioner - Judgment Debtor and respondent - Decree

Holder arrived at amicable settlement and the

compromise decree was recorded in Execution Petition

No.19/2005. In terms of the compromise, the present

petitioner - Judgment Debtor agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.60,000/-.

3. The petitioner's grievance is that in terms of

the compromise, he has already paid an amount of

Rs.52,000/- and in view of the full and final

settlement, the execution petition was closed as fully

satisfied. Therefore, the petitioner is placing reliance

on the order passed in E.P.No.19/2005. It is

contended that the settlement arrived at in

E.P.No.19/2005 is fully satisfied. The respondent -

Decree Holder cannot be proceeded with the other

pending execution proceedings in Ex.P.No.7/2009.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner. Perused the materials on record.

5. The petitioner has agreed to pay an amount

of Rs.60,000/- in terms of the settlement arrived in

E.P.19/2005. The materials on record clearly indicate

that he has paid only an amount of Rs.52,000/-.

What emerges from the record is that in terms of both

decrees passed in O.S.No.185/1996 and

O.S.No.122/1999, the petitioner - Judgment Debtor

has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the

respondent - Decree Holder. Merely because

E.P.No.19/2005 is closed as fully satisfied, the

petitioner cannot object and resists the execution

petition pending in E.P.No.7/2009. The petitioner has

admitted to repay an amount of Rs.60,000/-. If the

materials on record indicate that he has paid only an

amount of Rs.52,000/-, the pending execution petition

in E.P.No.7/2009 cannot be dismissed by taking note

of the order passed in E.P.No.19/2005. Therefore, I

do not find any error in the order under challenge.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

[[

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM