M/S R.K. Builders vs M/S Rini Agencies
2022 Latest Caselaw 10407 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        WRIT PETITION NO.12784 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1.     M/S R.K. BUILDERS
       DOOR NO.4-6-577/31
       MAHENDRA ARCADE,
       IST FLOOR,KARANGALPADI,
       MANGALURU-575002
       A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
       REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER/PARTNER,
       SRI RAMESH KUMAR,
       S/O CHOODAPPA SALIAN,
       AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
       R/AT SARASWATHI,
       OPP MANGALA STADIUM,
       GANDHI NAGAR,
       MANGALURU D K DISTRICT-575003

2.     SMT URMILA RAMESH
       W/O RAMESH KUMAR,
       AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
       PARTNER M/S R K BUILDERS,
       R/AT SARASWATHI,
       OPP MANGALA STADIUM,
       GANDHI NAGAR,
       MANGALURU
       D K DISTRICT-575003
                                         ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
                            2



AND:

M/S RINI AGENCIES
NO.5-38, LUDRIC COMPOUND,
GUDDETHOTA, KANKANADY POST,
MANGALURU-575002
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF PRARTNERSHIP ACT, REP BY ITS PARTNER,
RONALD BENJAMIN RODRIGUES,
S/O LATE R F RODRIGUES,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18-2-20(2) G-1, ROSHNY,
STURROCK ROAD, FALNIR,
MANGALURU-575001
                                           ...RESPONDENT

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE TRIAL
COURT TO PASS SUITABLE ORDERS AND CONCLUDE THE
COM.EXECUTION CASE 566/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE MANGALURU IN A TIME FRAMED LIMIT
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

judgment debtor seeking a mandamus to issue

direction to the Executing Court to look into the

respective memo of calculations and thereafter pass

appropriate orders in terms of the joint memo filed by

the decree holder and the judgment debtor.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though

the calculations are submitted by respective parties,

the Executing Court is postponing the determination of

the claims in terms of the respective memo of

calculations submitted by the decree holder as well as

judgment debtor.

3. Since no relief is sought, the Court is of the

view that there is no need to issue notice to the

respondent.

4. Perused the material on record. The Decree

holder has submitted a memo of calculation on

27.11.2020 whereas, the present petitioner/judgment

debtor submitted their memo of calculation on

16.04.2022. This is a peculiar case where the present

petitioner/judgment debtor, who is before this court,

has stated that he is willing to pay the amount, which

is legally due to the decree holder. His only grievance

is that the Executing Court is either bound to accept

the memo of calculation submitted by the decree

holder or the memo of calculation submitted by the

judgment debtor.

5. I find some force in the submission made by

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. If

the judgment debtor is willing to pay what is legally

due, then the Executing Court is bound to properly

examine the memo of calculations to arrive at a

conclusion. Such exercise is not done in this case.

Therefore, mandamus is issued. Accordingly, I pass

the following order:

The writ petition is allowed. The Executing Court

is directed to examine the memo of calculations,

which are placed before it and thereafter proceed to

determine the claim of decree holder as well as the

judgment debtor. This exercise shall be completed

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-