Karnataka High Court
M/S Cavalry Entertainment Llp vs Sri Veeregowda on 14 February, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6368
WP No. 8324 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.8324 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S CAVALRY ENTERTAINMENT LLP
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.721, 1ST FLOOR,
10TH CROSS, PATEL LAYOUT,
BALAGERE ROAD, VARTHUR,
BANGALORE 560087
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARNTER
2. MR. HARI NATHA RAO BALAJI RAO ENGLI
S/O HARANADHA RAO E
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.163/4,
1ST FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
K.S.V.K SCHOOL ROAD,
HAGADHUR VILLAGE,
Digitally BANGALORE 560066
signed by ...PETITIONERS
VANDANA S (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA K., ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SRI VEEREGOWDA
S/O HUCHANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT CANTEEN OWNER,
M/S VAIBHAV CINEMA THEATRE,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560094
ALSO R/AT
NO.22, COURT ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6368
WP No. 8324 of 2023
ROJIPURA, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL,
KARNATAKA - 561203
2. SRI SHEKAR M R
S/O GUNGULU
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT SY NO.84,
GREEN FIELD HUB, BLOCK,
SEEGEHALLI ROAD, KADUGODI
BENGALURU 560067
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.VEERABHADRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2023
PASSED ON AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 58 OF CPC
FILED IN EX.PETITION NO.259/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL
COURT ) BENGALURU CITY AT BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition by the obstructor / objector in
Com.Ex.No.259/2022 is directed against the impugned order
dated 03.03.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 by the LXXXVIII Addl. City
Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Commercial Court), Bengaluru
City, whereby the said application filed by the petitioners /
obstructors / objectors under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC was dismissed
by the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:6368
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
respondent No.1 - decree holder instituted the aforesaid execution
proceedings against respondent No.2 - judgment debtor to enforce
and implement the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2022 passed
in Com.O.S.No.5637/2019. During pendency of the proceedings,
respondent No.1 obtained attachment of the movables on the
ground that the same belong to respondent No.2 - judgment
debtor. Subsequently, petitioners / objectors / obstructors filed the
instant application - I.A.No.1 claiming that it was a limited liability
partnership firm, which owned and possessed the said movables
and that they had independent right over the movables attached by
respondent No.1 - decree holder.
4. On the other hand, respondent No.1 - decree holder
contended that the movables so attached belongs absolutely to
respondent No.2 - judgment debtor and consequently, the question
of entertaining the claim of the petitioners as third party objectors /
obstructors would not arise. It was also contended that petitioners
have no locus standi to file the application much less invoking the
NC: 2024:KHC:6368
provisions contained under Order 21 Rule 57 CPC. After hearing
the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that petitioners
did not have independent right nor locus standi to file the
application and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the application
by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present
petition.
5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged
in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on
record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since there
are disputed questions of fact and law and several contentious
issues between the parties that arise for consideration, it was
incumbent upon the Trial Court to conduct enquiry by permitting
both the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence and
Trial Court has committed an error in summarily dismissing the
application without conducting / holding enquiry as held by this
Court in the case of Technocon Builders Vs. K. Sudarshana and
others - W.P.Nos.58838/2013 and 3291-92/2014 dated
04.01.2016. It is therefore contended that the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and matter
NC: 2024:KHC:6368
remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in
accordance with law.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would
support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in
the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. It is also
submitted that petitioners being an unregistered limited liability
partnership firms does not have locus standi either to prefer the
present petition or to maintain the instant application before the
Trial Court.
7. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
there is a serious dispute as regards ownership of attached
movables, which are subject matter of the application filed by the
petitioners under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The dispute between the
parties and rival contentions makes it necessary for conducting an
enquiry by permitting both sides to adduce both oral and
documentary evidence. Under these circumstances, I am of the
view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to
be set aside and matter remitted back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
NC: 2024:KHC:6368
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 03.03.2023 passed
on I.A.No.1 in Com.Ex.No.259/2022 by the LXXXVIII Addl.
City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Commercial Court),
Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside.
(iii) Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) The Trial Court is directed to conduct necessary
enquiry and dispose of application - I.A.No.I within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SV
