Karnataka High Court

Sri Manjunath K Shetty vs Sri R Ravindranath on 8 February, 2024

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                            -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC:5551
                                                     WP No. 1683 of 2024




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                         BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 1683 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
            BETWEEN:

            SRI MANJUNATH K SHETTY
            S/O LATE SRI KORAGAIAH SHETTY
            AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
            RESIDING AT NO 176/73
            55TH CROSS, IV BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR,
            BENGALURU 560 010
            PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO 524,
            8TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR POST OFFICE
            SADASHIVANAGAR
            BENGALURU - 560 080.
                                                             ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN.,ADVOCATE)
            AND:

            1.     SRI R RAVINDRANATH
                   S/O LATE SRI RANGAIAH
                   AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
                   RESIDING AT NO 217 2ND E CROSS,
Digitally          3RD BLOCK 3RD STAGE,
signed by          BASAVESHWARANAGAR
VANDANA S          BENGALURU - 560 079.
Location:
HIGH        2.     SRI VIKAS JAIN
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          S/O SRI MAHENDRA JAIN
                   AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
                   RESIDING AT NO 305,
                   SHANTI PARK APARTMENT,
                   9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
                   BENGALURU - 560 011.

            3.     SRI K S BHASKAR
                   S/O LATE SRI KORAGAIAH SHETTY
                   AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
                   RESIDING AT NO 176/73
                                 -2-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:5551
                                             WP No. 1683 of 2024




     55TH CROSS, IV BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 010.
     PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO 524,
     8TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR POST OFFICE
     SADASHIVANAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 080.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.V. VIJAY RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)


      THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER 18.12.2023 ON
I.A.NO.5 DTD 31.10.2023 FILED BY THE R1 U/S 151 OF THE CPC IN
EX.NO.17/2020 BY THE HONBLE JUDGE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                              ORDER

In this petition, petitioner - Judgment Debtor No.2 is aggrieved

by the impugned order passed on I.A.No.5 in Ex.No.17/2020 on the

file of I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District,

Bangalore, whereby the said application filed by the respondents 1

and 2 - Decree Holders under Section 151 CPC for police

protection and attachment of the movables of the petitioner was

allowed by the trial court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

NC: 2024:KHC:5551

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that

respondents 1 and 2 instituted the aforesaid execution proceedings

seeking enforcement of the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2019

passed in O.S.No.762/2010 by the trial court. The appeal in RFA

No.82/2022 has been preferred by the petitioner - appellant, in

which, this Court has passed an order dated 28.03.2022 staying

judgment and decree dated 10.12.2019 passed by the trial court,

subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.50 lakhs before this Court

within a period of Eight weeks from that date. The undisputed fact

that the petitioner - appellant has not complied with the said order

and consequently, there is no stay of the judgment and decree

passed by the trial court.

4. In the instant execution proceedings, respondents 1 and 2

filed the instant application seeking police aid / protection and for

attachment of the movables for the purpose of implementing and

executing the impugned judgment and decree. The said

application was not opposed by the petitioner, who did not file any

objections to the said application and accordingly, the trial court

proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.5 by holding as

under:-

NC: 2024:KHC:5551

" By filing the above IA, DHR prays to issue aid of the police to break open the door lock premises of JDRs to attach the movable properties of JDRs.

2. It is submitted that, present execution is filed to recover them one in terms of judgment and decree passed in O. No.762/2010. It is further submitted that, on presentation of present petition, the JDRs have appeared before the court and undertook to settle the matter. It is further submitted that, both parties have settled the dispute and filed joint memo wherein, the JDRs have agreed to pay total sum of Rs.2,05,00,000/- and paid Rs,5,00,000/- before the court. Further, it is submitted that, the JDRs have agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- by two installments but, JDRs have ailed to oblige the terms of joint memo. It is further submitted that, the court issued attachment of movables of JDRs. It is further submitted that, warrant to attach the movables of JDRs have been returned as JDRs resisted to execute the same as the premises of JDRs is door lock. It is further submitted that, the court officer sought for police aid to break open the door lock for the purpose of attaching the movable of JDRs. Hence, sought for allow the above.

3.The JDRs failed to file objection to above IA.

4.Perusal material before the court.

5.The case file discloses that, the JDR No.1 agreed as per the joint memo dtd.27.06.2022 to pay the Rs.2,05,00,000/- to the DHRs. The case file further discloses that, out of the agreed amount, JDR No.1 has paid

NC: 2024:KHC:5551

Rs.5,00,000/- to the DHRs but failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. The court file discloses that, the attachment warrant issued by the court date 03.06.2022 has been returned by the court officer vide its report dated 18.06.2022 stating that, the premises of JDR is door lock and also necessity of police in executing the warrant of attachment to enforce the decree. Therefore, it is proper to issue police aid in executing the decree as it is well settled position of law that to execute the decree of the court, the court is also empowered to issue direction to the police to aid in execution of decree. In view of the same, court pass the following:

ORDER I.A.No.5 filed by the DHR U/s.151 of CPC is allowed Consequently, the Sadashivnagar Police Station are directed to provide necessary assistance to court officer in executing the warrant of attachment of movables of JDR in the premises of JDRs f so, requested by the court officer.

Issue initiation to the above effect to the concerned police station.

Issue attachment of movables of JDRs if transportation charges are paid by 16.02.2024."

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this

Court by way of the present petition. When the present petition was

posted before this Court on 19.01.2024, the following order was

passed:-

NC: 2024:KHC:5551

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Issue emergent notice to the respondents returnable by 05.02.2024.

Counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to serve the counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Decree holders before the Trial Court.

In the meanwhile, all further proceedings in Ex.No.17/2020 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, are hereby stayed, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs on or before 27.01.2024 before the Executing Court.

Re-list on 05.02.2024.

Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents to seek vacation / modification of this order.

6. Subsequently, instead of complying with the directions of

this Court by depositing Rs.50 lakhs, the petitioner has filed

I.A.1/2024 seeking extension of time, which is vehemently opposed

by the learned counsel for respondents, who also pointed out that

the earlier order passed by this Court in RFA No.82/2022 directing

the petitioner - appellant to deposit the identical sum of Rs.50 lakhs

was also not complied with by the petitioner.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the

conduct of the petitioner in not depositing any sum or money before

NC: 2024:KHC:5551