Smt Gangamma vs Smt Jayamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 4238 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                          BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

       WRIT PETITION NO.872 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. GANGAMMA
   W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

2. M. BABU
   S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

3. RANGANATH
   S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
   AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

4. SMT. SOWBHAGYA. R
   W/O RANGANATH
   AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

5. VINUTH GOWDA
   S/O RANGANATH
   AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.
  MINOR REP. BY GUARDIAN
  FATHER RANGANATH
  ALL ARE RESIDING AT
  NEAR BIDDANJANEYA TEMPLE,
  B.H. ROAD, GUBBI TOWN,
  TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 216.
                                          ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA. A, ADVOCATE)
                                  2


AND:

SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O CHANNAGANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE No.147,
JAYAMMA COMPLEX,
VINAYAKANAGARA 4TH MAIN ROAD,
TUMAKURU CITY-572 101.
                                                   ....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04TH DECEMBER, 2021 ON IA NO.1
PASSED IN EXECUTION NO.36 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GUBBI,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE; AND ETC.

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

                             ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the Judgment Debtors 1 to 5 in

Execution No.36 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC., Gubbi challenging the order dated 04th

December, 2021 passed on application IA.1 filed by the Decree

Holder.

2. Perusal of the writ petition would indicate that the

respondent/Decree Holder has filed Original Suit No.144 of 2019

on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi, seeking

specific performance of contract. The said suit came to be

decreed on 25th October, 2019. Thereafter, the Decree Holder

has filed Execution Petition No.36 of 2020 on the file of the trial

Court and seeks to execute the judgment and decree passed in

Original Suit No.144 of 2019. In the said suit, the Decree Holder

has filed an application in IA.1 under Order XXI Rule 32 of the

Civil Procedure Code read with Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil

Procedure Code which came to be allowed by the trial Court by

impugned Order dated 04th December, 2021. Being aggrieved

by the same, the Judgment Debtors have filed this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Lourdu Mariyappa. A., learned counsel

appearing for petitioners and Sri. Manjunath Hegde, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. T. Seshagiri Rao, learned

counsel appearing for respondent.

4. Sri. Lourdu Mariyappa. A, learned counsel appearing for

petitioners contended that there was a suit between the same

parties in Original Suit No.144 of 2019 and the said suit came to

be compromised in Lok Adalat on 25th October, 2019. Therefore,

the executing Court ought to have considered the said aspect as

contended by the Judgment Debtors and therefore argued that

allowing the application in IA.1 filed by the Decree Holder is

contrary to the award passed in Original Suit No.144 of 2019.

Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. Manjunath Hegde, learned counsel

appearing for respondent sought to justify the impugned order.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for parties,

it is not in dispute that Original Suit No.144 of 2019 was filed by

the Decree Holder/respondent herein, against the Judgment

Debtors/petitioners herein and said suit came to be decreed on

25th October, 2019. Perusal of the finding recorded by the trial

Court would indicate that Original Suit No.153 of 2021 filed by

the petitioners herein is decreed and thereafter, the execution

case was filed. In this regard, I have carefully considered the

finding recorded by the trial Court in Original Suit No.144 of

2019 filed by the Decree holder/respondent herein came to be

disposed of in the Lok Adalat, as the parties to the lis have

entered into compromise. However, insofar as the judgment

and decree passed in Original Suit No.153 of 2021 is concerned,

the Judgment Debtors/petitioners herein have not produced any

material before this Court that the said judgment and decree

passed in Original Suit No.153 of 2021 is stayed or interfered by

the Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, I do not find

any material in this writ petition to interfere with the well

reasoned judgment made by the trial Court. Accordingly, writ

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ARK