Karnataka High Court
Sri M Radhakrishna Hebbar vs Sri M Raghava Hebbar on 23 February, 2023
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
WP No. 25180 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 25180 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M RADHAKRISHNA HEBBAR
S/O LATE NARAYANA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
RESIDING AT MANJILU HOUSE
SHIBAJE VILLAGE AND POST
BELTHANGADI TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA -574 214
2. SRI M DIVAKARA HEBBAR
S/O LATE NARAYANA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDIN AT MANJILUHOUSE
SHIBAJE VILLAGE AND POST
Digitally signed BELTHANGADI TALUK
by VIJAYA P DAKSHINA KANNADA -574 214
Location: High ... PETITIONERS
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI M RAGHAVA HEBBAR
S/O LATE NARAYANA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
2. SRI M MADHUKARA HEBBAR
S/O SRI M RAGHAVA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
-2-
WP No. 25180 of 2022
3. SRI M SUDARSHAN HEBBAR
S/O SRI M RAGHAVA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT 'GURUKRIPA NILAYA'
PUDUVETTU VILLAGE
BELTHANGADI TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA -574 214
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 07.04.2022 PASSED IN EX.NO.3/2017 BY THE
COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
BELTHANGADY, AS PER ANNEXURE-G, OR PASS OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDERS UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY ALLOWING THIS WP AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have sought for setting aside of the order
dated 07.04.2022 passed in Ex. No. 3/2017 by the Court
of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, whereby the
application filed under Section 151 of CPC by the judgment
debtor No.2 was rejected on payment of costs.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
in terms of the earlier order on I.As. IV and VII, the
WP No. 25180 of 2022
petitioners have been making payments at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- per month and has made payments in terms of
the order till 09.11.2012 i.e., till the date of disposal of
final decree proceedings.
3. However, it must be noticed that the Court
while dealing with I.A.II was of the view that the said
amount is required to be paid till delivery of possession of
share allotted to the petitioners therein. The stand by the
trial Court is equitable and does not call for any
interference as the petitioners, admittedly, had continued
enjoyment of physical possession till 20.04.2021, on which
date the possession was handed over. Accordingly, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the order while
clarifying that the previous amount paid as contended by
the petitioners ought to be taken note of while quantifying
the liability.
4. Needless to state that if the petitioners have
made payment of Rs.3,000/- per month till 09.11.2017 in
WP No. 25180 of 2022
terms of the order passed on I.As. IV and VII, the same
would be taken note of and liability be restricted to the
period subsequent thereto till the date of handing over of
possession.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VP
