Rajashekhar S/O Honnappa vs The Executive Engineer And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4144 Kant

                             1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2015

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

      WRIT PETITION NO.203313/2014 ( GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Rajashekhar S/o Honnappa
Age: 58 years,
Occ: Agriculture and Advocate,
R/o Lingasagur, Dist. Raichur.

                                               ... Petitioner

(By Sri Chaitanya Kumar Chandriki, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The Executive Engineer
       Krishna Jala Bhagya Nigam Ltd.,
       SBC Distributory, Divn.No.12,
       Rodalbanda, Lingasagur,
       Tq: Lingasagur,
       District - Raichur - 584101.

2.     The Chief Engineer
       Krishna Jala Bhagya Nigam Ltd.,
       Canal Zone No.1, Bhimarayan Gudi,
       Shahapur, Dist: Yadgir-585201.

3.     The Managing Director
       Krishna Jala Bhagya Nigam Ltd.,
       PWD Office, Annex, 3rd Floor,
                               2




      KR Circle, Bangalore-02.

4.    G. Gopalreddy
      S/o Venkareddy
      Age: 61 years, Occ: Contractor,
      H-1408, 11th Main, Mahalaxmipur,
      W.C. Road, 2nd Stage,
      Bangalore-560 086.

                                               ... Respondents
(By Sri Ashok Patil, Advocate for R1 & R3;
 Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R4
 R2 is served)

       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of
certiorari thereby quashing the order passed by Court below
and direct the 1st to 3rd respondent to pay the Advocate fee in
the petitioner order dated 26.03.2014 as per Annexure-E to
the writ petition, in E.P.No.108/08 and etc.

      This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:

                           ORDER

The petitioner-decree holder filed I.A. for release of

the amount in favour of the counsel representing the

claimant. The respondent No.4 - judgment debtor

deposited the amount in the name of the Advocate. The

learned Judge rejected the I.A. for release of the amount

to the counsel by assigning the reason that it is not the

duty of the Court.

2. Both the learned counsel submits that when an

amount is deposited as a fee of the counsel, the same

has to be released in his favour. The judgment debtor

submits that he has no objection if it is released to the

counsel.

3. In the light of the submissions made by both the

parties and also for the reason that the claimant made a

submission to the Court that he has no objection to

release the Advocate fee to the counsel, I pass the

following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed. I.A. filed by the decree holder is allowed and the amount deposited as Advocate fee to the learned counsel, is permitted to be released in his favour.

Sd/-

JUDGE

swk