Karnataka High Court
Sri K R Chandrashekar vs The Deputy Conservator on 5 January, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:585
WP No. 18271 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 18271 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI K R CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE SRI. RUDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
R/O KANCHINKAL DURGA,
DODDAMAGARAVALLI VILLAGE,
ALDUR HOBLI, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKMAGALURU 577111.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR I S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS
Digitally CHIKMAGALURU DIVISION,
signed by
ANAND N CHIKMAGALURU-577101.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT,
CHIKMAGALURU-577101.
3. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FOREST DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:585
WP No. 18271 of 2023
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.JYOTHI M MARADI., HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOSET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05.09.2022 VIDE ANNX-G PASSED IN EX
NO. 103/2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT
CHIKKAMAGALURU AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
PAY A SUM OF 19,90,503.75 AS BALANCE AMOUNT
PAYABLE ALONG WITH INTEREST.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 05.09.2022 passed in Ex. No.103/2020 by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chikkamagaluru [for short, 'the executing Court'] whereby
the executing Court directed the respondents/Judgment
Debtors to pay a sum of Rs.10,09,696/-. According to the
petitioner/decree holder, the respondents/judgment debtors
are due in a sum of Rs.19,90,503/- and not Rs.10,09,696/-
as wrongly/incorrectly quantified by the executing Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:585
2. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that
the executing Court has not taken into consideration the
material on record including the previous Court
proceedings and has committed error of calculation in
restricting the liability of the respondents only to
Rs.10,09,696/- as against Rs.19,90,503/- which is the
actual amount due without considering the account
statement etc. It is therefore submitted that the impugned
order passed by the executing Court deserves to be set
aside.
3. Per contra, the learned High Court
Government Pleader would support the impugned order
and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
4. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate
that the trial Court has not correctly and properly
appreciated the rival contentions and has not taken into
account the previous Court proceedings, documents while
arriving at the conclusion in the impugned order. In these
NC: 2024:KHC:585
circumstances, in order to provide one more opportunity to
the petitioner-decree holder to put forth their respective
contentions in relation to their memo of calculations, I deem
it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and
remand the matter back to the executing Court to
reconsider the claim of the petitioner/decree holder as
regards the amount to be paid by the respondents-
Judgment debtors to the petitioner-decree holder in
accordance with law within a stipulated timeframe. In the
result, the following:
ORDER
[a] The petition is allowed.
[b] The impugned order dated 05.09.2022 passed
in Ex. No.103/2020 by the Principal Senior
Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chikkamagaluru is set aside.
[c] The matter is remitted back to the executing
Court to reconsider the claim of the petitioner
in execution proceedings and pass appropriate
NC: 2024:KHC:585
orders in accordance with law after hearing
both sides on or before 26.04.2024.
[d] All rival contentions on all aspects of the
matter are kept open and no opinion is
expressed on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AN/-
