Sri Govardhana Nayak vs Prabhakara Prabhu
2023 Latest Caselaw 581 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.227 OF 2013 (EX)

BETWEEN:

SRI GOVARDHANA NAYAK
S/O LATE VITTAL NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT ARIADKA VILLAGE,
POST KAVU, PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 201.
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     PRABHAKARA PRABHU
       S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA PRABHU,
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

2.     M CHANDRASHEKARA PRABHU
       S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA PRABHU,
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

       BOTH RESIDENTS OF MUNDAKOCHI,
       ARIADKA VILLAGE, POST KAVU,
       PUTTUR TALUK D.K.-574 201.

3.     M. GANGADHARA NAYAK
       S/O LATE VITTAL NAYAK,
                            2



     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
     R/AT ARIYADKA VILLAGE AND POST
     PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574 201.

4.   M. MOHAN NAYAK
     S/O LATE VITTAL NAYAK,
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     MANAGER, MADRAS CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS,
     KUSHALANAGAR-571 234.

5.   DR. M. GOPALAKRISHNA NAYAK
     S/O LATE VITTAL NAYAK,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     R/AT MUNDAKOCHI, ARIYADKA VILLAGE
     PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574 201.

6.   SMT. SHASHIKALA
     D/O VITTAL NAYAK
     W/O RADHAKRISHANA BHAT,
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
     R/AT AJJAVARA VILLAGE AND POST
     SULLIA TALUK, D.K-574 243.

7.   SMT. YASHODA
     D/O VITTAL NAYAK
     W/O BHARATHI SHANKAR,
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
     R/AT KILANGODI HOUSE,
     BALILA VILLAGE AND POST,
     SULLIA TALUK, D.K.-574 243.

8.   SMT. KAUSTUBHA
     D/O VITTAL NAYAK
     W/O BABAPRASAD SHARMA,
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
     R/AT MUNDAKOCHI
     ARIADKA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK,
     D.K.-574 201.
                                    3



9.      SMT. INDUMATHI
        D/O VITTAL NAYAK
        W/O KAMALAKSHA PRABHU,
        AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
        R/AT NADUSARU HOUSE,
        PUNCHA VILLAGE, P.O.
        PUNCHA, D.K-574 211.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI DEEPAK WAGALE, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
    R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 & R9 ARE SERVED)

     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 1.6.2013 PASSED ON IA NO.XV IN EX.NO.29/1999 ON
THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR,
REJECTING IA NO.XV FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(3) OF
CPC TO SUPERSEDE THE COMMISSIONER REPORT.

     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

This petition under Section 115 of CPC is filed challenging

the order dated 01.06.2013 on I.A.No.15 passed by the Principal

Civil Judge, JMFC, Puttur in Execution case No.29/1999,

dismissing I.A.No.15 filed by the Judgment Debtor No.1 under

Order 26 Rule 10(3) of CPC to supersede the Commissioner

Report and acceptance of Commissioner's report.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holder

submits that parties have amicably settled the dispute among

themselves and filed compromise petition before Executing Court

and in view of the same relief sought for in this petition does not

survive for consideration.

3. Submission is placed on record.

4. Petition is disposed off as it does not survive for

consideration. However, the Executing Court is directed to pass

appropriate order on the compromise petition filed by the

parties.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR