Karnataka High Court
Subhas S/O Upendra Kamath @ ... vs Prakash S/O Mohan Kamath @ ... on 12 June, 2023
Bench: Anil B Katti
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100233 OF 2019 (397-)
BETWEEN:
SUBHAS S/O UPENDRA KAMATH @ KIMANEKAR
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: NO.21, UPSTAIRS,
ASHOK NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580032.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROHIT S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRAKASH S/O MOHAN KAMATH @ KIMANEKAR
AGE: 32 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by J OCC: BUSINESS,
MAMATHA
J R/O: 21, GROUND FLOOR,
MAMATHA Date:
2023.06.13
12:26:14 -
0700
ASHOK NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580032.
2. SATISH S/O MOHAN KAMATH @ KIMANEKAR
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: PVT. SERVICE
R/O: A/5, 404 SWASTIK RESIDENCY,
BEHIND MUCHALA POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
GHODBUNDER ROAD,
(WEST) MUMBAI-400615,
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2019
3. MOHAN S/O UPENDRA KAMATH @ KIMANEKAR
AGE: 73 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 21, GROUND FLOOR,
ASHOK NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH , ADV. FOR R1
SRI. ARVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.397 R/W
SEC.401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYED THAT THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
CRL.APPEAL NO.8/16 ON DATED 31/10/2018 ON THE FILE OF 1ST
ADDNL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD SITTING AT
HUBBALLI BE QUASHED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED
BY II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-III COURT HUBBALLI, ON
IA-2 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.131/2009, DATED 08/09/2015 BE
SET ASIDE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Notice to respondent No.2 is returned unserved as he left
the address.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of respondent No.3.
Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are represented through their counsel.
Hence, under these circumstances notice to respondent No. 2 is
dispensed with.
Heard both counsel.
On perusal of records, it would go to show that JDR No.1
filed an application at I.A.No.2 under Section 340 of Cr.P.C for
CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2019
holding enquiry against decree holder Nos.1 and 2 and
judgment debtor No.2. The trial Court after context dismissed
the application and imposed cost of Rs.2,000/-
The said order was assailed by appellant/JDR No.1 before
the first appellate Court on the file of I Additional District and
Sessions Judge Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi. The first appellate
Court after hearing both sides dismissed the appeal by
imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- and cost shall be deposited to the
State exchequer.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, if cost is
waived, the matter can be disposed of.
On other hand learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
and 3 submits that they leave it to the discretion of the Court.
Perused the impugned order, revision petition and also
the order of trial Court in rejecting I.A.No.2, the Courts below
looking to the conduct of JDR No.1 in conducting the
proceedings and in filing the suits over a property dispute
imposed the cost. The first appellate Court having affirmed the
finding of trial Court has imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- payable
CRL.RP No. 100233 of 2019
to the State exchequer. Looking to the various litigation
between the parties and the appeals being pending before the
appellate forum and peculiar facts and circumstances of present
case, in my opinion, if the cost imposed by the first appellate
Court is ordered to be waived, then it would meet the ends of
justice. The rest of findings of the first appellate Court remains
undisturbed. The revision petition is ordered to be disposed of
accordingly.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
AC
