G L Vinayakumar vs S. Ashwath Narayana
2022 Latest Caselaw 3948 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

       WRIT PETITION NO.13023 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

G.L. VINAYAKUMAR,
S/O LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.242,
PANCHASHEELA NAGARA,
3RD CROSS, MUDALAPALYA,
NAGARABAVI ROAD,
BENGALURU.
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

S. ASHWATH NARAYANA
S/O SUBBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT CHAMUNDESHWARI BEEDI,
SRIRANGAPATNA,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
                                          ....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA. K, ADVOCATE )


    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05TH JANUARY, 2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR
                                 2



CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, IN EXECUTION NO.48 OF 2012 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C.

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

                            ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor in

Execution petition No.48 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge, Maddur, against the order dated 05th January, 2019

issuing arrest warrant came to be passed against the Judgment

Debtor.

2. The factual matrix of the case are that, respondent

herein has filed Original Suit No.16 of 2010 on the file of the

Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Maddur against the petitioner herein for

recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- on the basis of Sale Agreement. The

said suit came to be decreed by the trial Court on 01st

December, 2011. Thereafter, respondent/decree holder has filed

Execution petition No.48 of 2012 before the trial Court and

sought to execute the compromise decree that has been passed

in the suit on 01st December, 2011. The trial Court taking into

consideration the objections filed by the petitioner herein, by its

order dated 05th January, 2019, issued arrest warrant against

the judgment debtor for having not complied with the

compromise decree dated 01st December, 2011. Being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented this writ

petition.

3. I have heard Sri. S.N.Bhat, learned counsel appearing

for petitioner and Sri. Shridhara K., learned counsel appearing

for respondent.

4. Sri. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for petitioner

has invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-A Execution

Petition filed by the respondent herein and submitted that there

is no dispute with regard to the decreetal amount of

Rs.3,00,000/-, however, the interest charged by the decree

holder in the Execution Petition is at 18% and not 1.5% per

annum as stated in the compromise decree. Accordingly, he

argued that, the said aspect of the matter was not considered by

the trial Court while passing the impugned order. He further

contended that the petitioner/judgment debtor has paid sum of

Rs.2,20,000/- to decree holder. The said aspect was also not

considered by the trial Court while passing impugned order.

Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. Shridhara. K., learned counsel

appearing for respondent/decree holder disputed the fact that

the petitioner has paid Rs.2,20,000/- to the decree holder as

argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further

contended that the decree has been passed in the year 2011.

However, petitioner/judgment debtor has not adhered to the

payment of decreetal amount and as such, he sought for

dismissal of the writ petition.

6. In the light of submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing for parties, I have carefully considered the writ papers

which would indicate that the respondent herein has filed

Original Suit No.16 of 2010 before the trial Court which came to

be decreed in terms of the compromise petition filed by the

parities on 01st December, 2011. It appears that the

petitioner/judgment debtor has not complied with the

compromise entered into between the parties and as such,

respondent herein as filed Execution case No.48 of 2012 before

the trial Court. The trial Court having taken into account the fact

that the judgment debtor has not obeyed the decree and has not

paid the decreetal amount to the decree holder, passed

impugned order dated 05th January, 2019 by issuing arrest

warrant against the judgment debtor.

7. In the light of submission made by learned counsel

appearing for judgment debtor/petitioner herein, perusal of the

order of this Court dated 17th March, 2020 and averments made

in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, would indicate that the

petitioner/judgment debtor has paid Rs.2,20,000/- and has to

pay the balance of Rs.80,000/- on the decreetal amount.

However, taking into consideration the arguments advanced by

learned counsel appearing for petitioner/judgment debtor, the

petitioner/judgment debtor has to pay Rs.3,00,000/- with

interest at the rate of 1.5% per annum to the decree

holder/respondent herein. I am of the view that the impugned

order passed by trial Court is just and proper which cannot be

interfered with since, the compromise decree has been passed

on 01st December, 2011 and even as on today it is not

forthcoming from the writ papers that the petitioner has satisfied

the decreetal amount in terms of the compromise petition and as

such, issue of arrest warrant against the petitioner/judgment

debtor is just and proper which do not call for any interference in

this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ARK