Sri Vijay S/O Sri Parashuram ... vs Sri Vasanth Ravalu Govekar
2022 Latest Caselaw 3775 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 5 T H DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                           BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI


                   R.F.A. NO.2057/2006

BETWEEN

SRI VIJAY S/O SRI PARASHURAM NANDHIHALLI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
NO.1644, ALWANGALLLISHAHAPUR, BELGAUM
                                             ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.R.G.HEGDE, ADV.)

AND

1.     SRI VASANTH RAVALU GOVEKAR
       S/O SRI RAVALU GOVEKARAGED
       ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC SERVICE,
       R/O.JAMBOTI , BELGAUM

2.     THE PRESIDENT
       VISHWA BHARATH SEVA SAMITHI,
       ALWANGLALI , SHAHAPUR, BELGAUM

3.     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
       OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BELGAUM
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADV. FOR
SRI.V.M .SHEELVANT, ADV. FOR R1
R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED)

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2006 PASSED ON I .A. NO.I IN
EXECUTION CASE NO.86/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, REJECT ING THE I .A. FILED UNDER
ORDER 21 RULE 58 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

     THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   2




                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 22.08.2006

passed by the Principal District Judge, Belagavi in Execution Petition

No.86/1992 rejecting application filed by appellant under Order 21

Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "CPC") and

allowing decree holder's application under Order 21 Rule 54 of CPC.

2. Facts in brief as are necessary for disposal of this

appeal are that respondent No.1 herein obtained an award against

respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.1,96,194.80 in K.P.E.I.A.

No.7/1981. For executing said award, E.P. No.86/1992 was filed. In

the said execution petition, decree holder - respondent No.1 filed

an application under Order 21 Rule 54 of CPC for attachment of

immovable property namely VPC No.418/1 of Belgundi Village,

Taluk and District Belagavi. Opposing said application, appellant

herein filed third party objector's application under Order 21 Rule

58 of CPC. It was contended by appellant that appellant was office

bearer of second respondent namely President and that property

sought to be attached was his personal property even though no

award/decree under execution was passed against appellant.

Without considering said objection, executing Court allowed the

application filed by decree holder and rejected application filed by

appellant. The specific case of appellant being that property bearing

VPC No.418/1 of Belgundi Village was his individual and personal

property and was not property belonging to Vishwa Bharat Seva

Samithi, respondent No.2 judgment debtor herein.

3. Apart from above submission, it was also submitted by

learned counsel for appellant that respondent had since satisfied

award and in that view of the matter, cause of action for execution

petition would be rendered infructuous.

4. On the other hand, Sri.Vinay S. Koujalagi, learned

counsel appearing for Sri.V.M.Sheelvant would however dispute

submission of counsel for appellant that decree had since been

satisfied by judgment debtor. Learned counsel was however unable

to dispute legal position that personal property of appellant herein

would not be available for attachment in execution of decree passed

against institution. He would submit that in case the decree is not

satisfied fully, liberty may be reserved to decree holder to proceed

against institution for recovery of balance if any. Learned counsel

for respondent No.1 would further submit that in view of interim

order granted in this appeal, decree holder could not proceed

against judgment debtor and execution petition had been closed in

view of the interim order.

In view of above submission, as attachment of personal

property of office bearer of institution would be contrary to law,

rejection of appellant's application under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC

and allowing of application filed by decree holder under Order 21

Rule 54 of CPC cannot be sustained. Hence, I pass following:

ORDER

Impugned order is set aside. Attachment of appellant's

property bearing VPC No.418/1 of Belgundi Village, Taluk and

District Belagavi is discharged reserving liberty to decree holder to

proceed against judgment debtor, in case award is not fully

satisfied, in accordance with law.

Appeal is allowed in terms of the above.

SD/-

JUDGE Rsh