Karnataka High Court
Sri Raju vs Sri Mahesh on 7 December, 2023
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44325
WP No. 27237 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 27237 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJU,
S/O LATE BASAVALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF G.V. GOWDANAGARA,
MADHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 440.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VINITA J.D., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. SRI. MAHESH,
A K CHANDRIKA
Location: High
S/O LATE VENKATARANGAIAH,
Court Of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KAVUDAVADI VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 571 440.
2. SMT. KEMPAMMA,
W/O BASAVA LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
R/O MADHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44325
WP No. 27237 of 2023
3. SRI. SHIVARAJU H.M.,
S/O NAGAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/O HAGGAVADIPURA VILLAGE,
SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 571 440.
4. SMT. JAYAMMA,
D/O LATE BASAVALINGAIAH,
W/O SRI. SIDDURA @ SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O MARIYAPURA VILLAGE,
PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 440.
5. SMT. NAGAMMA,
D/O LATE BASAVALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O MADHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 440.
6. SMT. NINGARAJAMMA,
W/O LATE MAHADEVASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O MADHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 440.
7. SMT. BHOOMIKA M.,
D/O LATE MAHADEVASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O MADHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 440.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44325
WP No. 27237 of 2023
8. SRI SURYA PRAKASH,
S/O LATE MAHADEVASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/O MADHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 440.
9. SRI. PRAKASHA,
S/O LATE BASAVALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O MADHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 440.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.74/2017
DATED.03.11.2023 BY THE PRL DIST AND SESSION JUDGE
CHAMARAJNAGAR VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/objector in Execution No.74/2017 is
before this Court challenging order dated 03.11.2023
passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chamarajanagar, by which the application filed by the
decree holder under Order 16 Rules 1 and 6 is allowed and
NC: 2023:KHC:44325
the Tahsildar, Hanuru is directed to produce all the
documents as sought in the application.
2. Heard Smt. Vinita J.D., learned counsel for
Sri H. Devendrappa, learned counsel for the
petitioner/objector and perused the writ petition papers.
3. Respondent No.1/decree holder filed Execution
No.74/2017 to execute the award passed in MVC
No.145/2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner/objector filed an application under Order 21
Rule 58 of CPC praying to remove the attachment. While
the said application is pending, the respondent/decree
holder filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1 and 6 of
CPC seeking for a direction to the Tahsildar to produce the
documents relating to the judgment debtors' property as
well as objectors' property. Learned counsel would submit
that the petitioner is aggrieved by the direction issued to
NC: 2023:KHC:44325
the Tahsildar to produce documents related to the
petitioner/objector.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner
and on perusal of the writ petition papers including the
impugned order, I am of the view, no prejudice would be
caused to the petition in allowing the application filed
under Order 16 Rule 1 and 6 of CPC directing the Tahsildar
to produce relevant documents. Nothing is decided in the
said impugned order. The petitioner's application filed
under Order 21 Rule 58 is still pending consideration.
6. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is not
prejudiced or aggrieved by the impugned order. It is not a
case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT:SNN
