Karnataka High Court
Thagadegowda vs Paddamma on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.47403 OF 2017(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THAGADEGOWDA
S/O CHANNEGOWDA, MAJOR,
R/O HONNAGANNADODDI VILLAGE,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
ALLIMARANAHALLI DOKALE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-573420
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SUMANTH L BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PADDAMMA
W/O LATE RAMARAJU
MAJOR, R/O NO.137, ALLAMAPRABHU ROAD,
BANGALORE-19
2. R USHA
W/O V RAJANNA,
MAJOR, R/O NO.305/1, BYADRAPALLI VILLAGE,
M.G.R.NAGAR, SHIP COT, HOSUR TALUK
DHRMAPURI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU- 658421
3. R. ASHA
W/O YOGESHRAJ,
2
MAJOR, R/O NO.137, ALLAMAPRABHU ROAD,
BANGALORE-19
4. SMT.RAJAMMA,
W/O LATE SAMPANGIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
5. SRI BALARAJU
S/O LATE SAMPANGIRAJU
MAJOR,
BOTH 4 AND 5 R/AT HONNAGANNADODDI VILLAGE,
ALLIMARANAHALLI DOKALE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-573420
6. SMT BEBI,
W/O MANOHAR RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O 3RD CROSS VIVEKANANDHA NAGAR,
KANAPURA TOWN-560046
7. SRINIVASAIRAJU
S/O LATE RANGARAJU
MAJOR,
R/AT HONNAGANNADODDI VILLAGE,
ALLIMARANAHALLI DOKALE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK ,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-573420
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.L S CHIKKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-7)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD.12.10.2017 PASSED BY THE
3
COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DV) AND JMFC AT
KANAKAPURA IN EX.NO.13/2011 VIDE ANNEX-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the
judgment debtor No.3 assailing the order dated
12.10.2017 passed by the Executing Court on an
application filed by him under Order I Rule 10(2) of
CPC.
2. The present respondent-decree holder filed
an application for redemption of mortgage in
O.S.No.233/1993, which came to be decreed on
27.10.2003. The judgment debtors challenged the
same in R.A.No.12/2004, which also came to be
dismissed on 6.10.2010. RSA.No.2113/2012 filed
questioning the said concurred judgments and decrees
also came to be dismissed by this Court on 18.4.2022.
The respondent-decree holder based on the
decree passed in O.S.No.233/1993 filed execution
petition seeking delivery of possession in
E.P.No.13/2011. The judgment debtor No.3 who is
not the actual mortgagee but a relative of judgment
debtor No.1 filed an application alleging that there are
other Class-I heirs of judgment debtor No.1 who died
during the pendency of the execution petition. The
said application admittedly was not moved by Class-I
heirs of judgment debtor No.1. It is in this
background, the executing Court has proceeded to
reject the application. It is quite strange to note that
the proposed impleading applicants have not shown
any keen interest to come on record. The present
captioned writ petition is also not filed by the
proposed legal representatives of deceased judgment
debtor No.1 but by judgment debtor No.3. All these
significant details indicates that judgment debtor No.3
under the garb of bringing other Class-I heirs of
judgment debtor No.1, in all probability has made an
attempt to protract handing over possession to the
respondent-decree holder. The said application is
rightly rejected by the Executing Court. On perusal of
the order under challenge, I do not find any illegality
in the same.
3. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
decree holder would bring to the notice of this Court
that in terms of the delivery warrant, possession is
delivered to him on 22.3.2019. Therefore, no purpose
will be served in keeping this petition pending and if
the petition is allowed, the same would amount to
abuse of process.
4. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
