The Managing Director vs M/S Shruti Power Control
2022 Latest Caselaw 3720 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                           BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

       WRIT PETITION NO.5057 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
   HVAC SYSTEMS PVT LTD.,
   145, II MAIN, 1ST 'B' CROSS,
   2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE,
   DOMLUR,
   BENGALURU-560 071.

2. M/S HVAC SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,
   A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
   THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
   REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
   SIGNATORY MR. PRASHANTH
   HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
   145, II MAIN, 1ST 'B' CROSS,
   2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE,
   DOMLUR,
   BENGALURU-560 071.
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. ANNU BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S SHRUTI POWER CONTROL
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR. B SUNIL KUMAR,
HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT
                                    2


NO.48, A.M. LANE, BASETTYPET,
BEHIND B.B. BAKERY,
BVK IYENGAR ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 071.
                                                      ....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VITTAL SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 15TH FEBRUARY, 2020 IN IA.3 AND 4 AND
20.02.2020 IN ANNEXURE-B FOR BALANCE PAYMENT PASSED BY
THE CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU IN EXECUTION CASE 2174
OF 2019; AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 15th

February, 2020 and 20th February, 2020 passed on IAs III and

IV respectively by the judgment debtors in Execution case

No.2174 of 2019 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru

city (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court').

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have suffered

the decree dated 07th August, 2018 passed in Original Suit

No.4829 of 2014 on the file of the City Civil Court, wherein the

trial Court directed the petitioners herein to pay a sum of

Rs.6,04,934/- (Rupees Six Lakh Four Thousand Nine Hundred

and Thirty Four only) to the respondent herein/plaintiff before

the trial Court. Since the petitioners have not satisfied the

decreetal amount and as such, the respondent herein has filed

Execution case No.2174 of 2019 on the file of the trial Court and

sought to execute the judgment and decree passed in Original

Suit No.4829 of 2014. In the said Execution proceedings, the

judgment debtors filed two applications IAs I and II under

Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to recall the order dated 10th

January, 2020. However, at the time of hearing of the

applications, judgment debtors submitted before the trial Court

that they intend to settle the matter. However, the decree was

not satisfied by the judgment debtors. In the meanwhile, the

decree holder filed two applications under Section 151 of CPC to

break-open the Lock of the office premises of the judgment

debtors and for providing police help and those applications were

allowed by the Execution Court on 15th February, 2020.

Impugning the said order dated 15th February, 2020, petitioners

have presented this writ petition.

3. I have heard Smt. Annu Bhardwaj, learned counsel

appearing for petitioner and Sri. Vittala Shetty. P, learned

counsel appearing for respondent.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Taking into account the factual aspects of the case that the

petitioners herein have utilized the Electrical items for the

purpose of their business and in this regard Original Suit

No.4829 of 2014 has been filed before the trial Court for

recovery of the money, the trial Court by its judgment and

order dated 07th August, 2018 directed the petitioners herein to

pay a sum of Rs.6,04,934/- to the plaintiff. Since the petitioners

herein have not satisfied the decree, the respondent herein has

filed the Execution Case No.2174 of 2019 before the Execution

Court.

5. Perusal of the writ petition would further indicate that

the judgment debtors filed two application to recall the order

dated 10th January, 2020, considering that they intend to settle

the matter. However, perusal of the order sheet would indicate

that the petitioners herein have not satisfied the decreetal

amount nor shown any tendency to settle the matter. In that

view of the matter, the trial Court allowed two applications filed

by respondent herein/decree holder seeking to break-open the

Lock of the office premises of the judgment debtors and for

providing police help. Considering the fact that the petitioners

herein have suffered the judgment and decree in the year 2018,

however not satisfied the decreetal amount nor challenged the

judgment and decree before the competent appellate Court, in

that view of the matter, I am of the view that the reasons

assigned by trial Court in its order dated 15th February, 2020 is

just and proper which does not call for any interference in this

writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Amount in deposit be transmitted to Execution Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ARK