Sri. Byra vs Sri.M.N.Giridhar
2024 Latest Caselaw 18895 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Byra vs Sri.M.N.Giridhar on 29 July, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                     -1-
                                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:29817
                                                                CRP No. 426 of 2018




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                  DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                                   BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 426 OF 2018 (EX)
                        BETWEEN:

                        SRI. BYRA
                        S/O KALAIAH
                        AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                        R/OF MARUTHINAGAR
                        ARASIKERE TOWN
                        HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.
                                                                         ...PETITIONER
                        (BY SRI. MURTHY D.L., ADVOCATE)

                        AND:

                        SRI. M.N. GIRIDHAR
                        S/O NAGARAJUSHETTY
                        REP. BY HIS SPA HOLDER
Digitally signed by B
K
                        K N DURGASHETTY
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
                        S/O LATE K.N. NARASIMHASHETTY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA               AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
                        PRATHIBHA COLLEGE ROAD,
                        ARASIKERE TOWN
                        HASSAN DISTRICT-573103.
                                                                    ...RESPONDENT
                        (BY SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)

                               THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC,
                        AGAINST    THE   ORDER     DATED    30.07.2018    PASSED   IN
                        EX.NO.14/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
                                  -2-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:29817
                                               CRP No. 426 of 2018




JUDGE AND JMFC ARASIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 32(1)(2) OF CPC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                           ORAL ORDER

The decree in OS No.5/2009 was issued, directing the petitioner not to interfere with the plaintiff/respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties permanently. Despite this decree, the respondent alleges that the petitioner has interfered with their peaceful possession, constituting willful disobedience of the Trial Court's order. Consequently, the respondent filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Trial Court subsequently passed an order directing that the petitioner, as the judgment debtor, be detained in civil prison for a period of three months.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, upon receiving instructions, submits that the petitioner undertakes not to interfere with the respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, he requests that this Court set aside the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner having wilfully disobeyed the decree, the trial court is justified in passing the impugned order.

NC: 2024:KHC:29817

4. The submissions of the learned counsel for both parties are duly noted.

5. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court requires to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The revision petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 30.7.2018 passed in Ex.No.14/2017 by the learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere at Annexure-A is hereby set aside.

iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent to revive this petition , in the event, the petitioner continues to interfere with the respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

BKM