Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagamma vs Sri. Basappa on 18 April, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15356
CRP No. 670 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 670 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O. LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
2. SMT. MOHINI
W/O. RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SRI. RAJAPPA
S/O. LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
4. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O. SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 5. SRI. SHIVAPPA
KIRAN
KUMAR R S/O. LATE BASAPPA
Location:
HIGH DEAD
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ALL ARE RESIDING AT
AMBLARE VILLAGE
HARANAHALLI HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAGAIAH.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15356
CRP No. 670 of 2023
AND:
SRI. BASAPPA
S/O. LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
AMBLARE VILLAGE
HARANAHALLI HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.BASAVANNA K M., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 16.09.2017 PASSES IN EX.
NO.57/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
PERIYAPATNA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE
DECREE HOLDER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This revision is filed challenging the impugned order dated
16.09.2017 of the Executing Court by which the Executing Court
has directed the Judgment Debtor (JDRs) Nos.3 and 5 i.e.
petitioners herein to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of
three months and also an order for attachment of property of JDR
Nos.1 to 5 if the Decree Holder (DHR) furnished the particulars of
immovable properties if owned by the JDRs.
NC: 2024:KHC:15356
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that respondent
instituted a suit in O.S.No.224/2008 for decree of injunction and the
said suit was decreed on 06.06.2013. This decree of injunction was
confirmed in appeal RA No.61/2013 and also by this Court in RSA
No.1216/2014. It was the case of the Decree Holder that there was
repeated attempts made to interfere with the possession which led
to the filing of Execution Petition No.57/2013, the Executing Court
accepted the said plea and has passed the above mentioned
impugned order.
3. Today, an affidavit is filed by the petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who
are JDR Nos.2 to 4 (JDR Nos.1 and 5 i.e. petitioner Nos.1 and 5
are dead) stating that they had never interfered with possession of
respondent over the suit schedule property and they have also
undertaken that they will not interfere with possession of the
respondent. The petitioners have also given an undertaking that
they would furnish a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
within a period of eight weeks and they requested this Court to
accept the affidavit and set aside the impugned order.
NC: 2024:KHC:15356
4. In view of the clear undertaking given by the petitioners that
they would not interfere with the possession of respondent/plaintiff
and also the fact that they are furnishing Bank Guarantee for a sum
of Rs.50,000/-, the impugned order dated 16.09.2017 is set aside.
5. In view of undertaking and Bank Guarantee that are offered,
it would be unnecessary to continue the execution proceedings and
it shall stand closed.
6. If however, the possession of respondent is sought to be
interfered with, it would be open for the respondent to initiate a
fresh execution proceedings and seek for forfeiture of the Bank
Guarantee apart from seeking for other remedial measures from
the Executing Court.
7. Subject to the above, the revision is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA
