Karnataka High Court
Sri. A A Aiyappa vs Sri M.S.Uthaiah on 15 March, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.18290 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI A A AIYAPPA
S/O LATE APPANERAVANDA ACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT ATHUR VILLAGE AND POST
PONNAMPET HOBLI AND TALUK
EARLIER FALLING UNDER VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 216.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI K J BOJANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI M S UTHAIAH
S/O MATHRANDA SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.2, 2ND MAIN
5TH BLOCK, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 006.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI G RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 31ST JANUARY, 2020 AND 06TH MARCH, 2021
2
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT
VIRAJPET, KODAGU IN FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS NO.07 OF
2019 (VIDE ANNEXURE-H) CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS
PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri K.J. Bhojanna, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri G. Ravishankar Shastry,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the
orders dated 31st January, 2020 and 06th March, 2021 passed in
FDP No.07 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC
Court, Virajapete, Kodagu with regard to the maintainability of
final decree proceedings.
3. Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel submits
that the final decree proceedings is not maintainable in view of
the provisions contained under Order XX Rule 15, 16, 17 and 18
since the suit is being filed for specific performance of the
agreement. He further invited the attention of the attention to
the Court to the order dated 05th January, 2018, passed in
Execution Case No.22 of 2016 and submitted that the impugned
order passed by the trial Court requires to be set aside in this
writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned
order.
5. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the
provisions contained in Order XX Rule 15, 16, 17 and 18 of Code
of Civil Procedure which provide for the final decree proceedings
to be initiated in respect of suits relating to partnership firm,
rendition of accounts insofar as relationship between principal
and agent and partition suits, respectively. Taking into
consideration, the provisions contained in Order XX of Code of
Civil Procedure, I am of the opinion that, since the suit is one
filed by the respondent herein seeking relief of specific
performance, the impugned order passed by the trial Court
requires to be set aside. However, taking into account the fact
that the respondent herein sought to execute the judgment and
decree dated 08th March, 2016 passed in Original Suit No.158 of
2014 (Annexure.-B), so also having taken note of the submission
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the
view that Final Decree Proceeding No.7 of 2019 is not
maintainable and requires to be closed. However, it is open for
the respondent herein to file the necessary application for
executing the judgment and decree in Original Suit No.158 of
2014 before the competent court by way of execution petition.
It is also made clear that, in the event, such an execution
petition is filed by the respondent herein, the incumbent court
cannot take into consideration the observation made by the trial
Court in Execution case No.22 of 2016 dated 05th January, 2018
(Annexure-E) to the writ petition. Writ petition is accordingly
disposed of. All contentions raised by the parties before this
Court and also before the Final Decree Proceedings, are kept
open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
