Karnataka High Court
M/S. High Rise Builders And Developers vs Sri H K Sathish on 31 July, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30250
WP No. 17955 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9300 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 17955 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 9300 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
IN WP NO. 17955 /2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. HIGH RISE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REGISTERED UNDER THE
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. VENUGOPAL M.J,
S/O JAVAREGOWDA M.B,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
NO. 57, GROUND FLOOR,
ADHITHYA CIRCLE,
Digitally signed DATTAHALLI 3RD STAGE,
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI CHAMARAJA MOHALLA,
Location: HIGH MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 022.
COURT OF ...PETITIONER
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. H.K. SATHISH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O KITTAPPA GOWDA,
R/O 1ST CROSS,
VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30250
WP No. 17955 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9300 of 2024
HOSAMANE CIRCLE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 101.
2. SRI. DINESH H.R,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O RAJAPPA,
R/O NO. 122/1, GOPAL CIRCLE,
KUSHALA NAGARA HOBLI,
SOMWARPETE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 234.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA ORDER 21 RULE 64 READ WITH
SECTION 151 CPC (ANNEXURE-A), DATED 16.06.2024, PASSED
BY II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, IN COM.EX.131/2023
AND ETC.,
BETWEEN:
H.K. SATISH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O KITTAPPA GOWDA,
RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS,
VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION,
HOSAMANE CIRCLE, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
NC: 2024:KHC:30250
AND:
1. SRI. DINESH H.R,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O RAJAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO. 122/1, GOPAL CIRCLE,
KUSHALANAGARA HOBLI,
SOMAVARAPETE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
2. HIGH RISE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
(A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REG. UNDER
THE PARTNERSHIP ACT)
NO. 57, GROUND FLOOR,
ADHITYA CIRCLE, DATTAGANDHI
3RD STAGE, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA,
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 022,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. VENUGOPAL M.J.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN IA NO. N12 DATED 06/03/2024
FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 97 OF CPC IN COM. EX. NO.
131/2023 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-P TO THE WP.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:30250
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL COMMON ORDER
Since both these writ petitions arise out of the
proceedings before the Commercial Court in Commercial
Execution case No.131/2023, both the matters are heard
together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.17955/2024 had earlier
filed W.P.No.14410/2023, being aggrieved of the rejection of
the application for impleadment filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and another application filed
under Order 1 Rule 3 of the CPC. This Court by order dated
22.08.2023 disposed of the writ petition, observing that the
immovable property belonging to respondent No.2 herein, who
is the judgment debtor, is a subject matter of a joint
development agreement entered into between the respondent
No.2 and petitioner herein, in terms of the joint development
agreement dated 27.04.2022. However, by a subsequent order
dated 19.07.2023, the executing Court passed an order of
attachment of the said property, which is the subject matter of
the joint development agreement. This Court therefore, came
NC: 2024:KHC:30250
to the conclusion that the application filed under Order 1 Rule
10 and Order 1 Rule 3 of the CPC is premature, however,
liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file any application as
an objector under Order 21 of the CPC and if such an
application is filed, the Executing Court was directed to consider
the same independently, on its merits. Subsequently, the
petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with
Rule 101 of CPC. The Executing Court by order dated
06.03.2024, directed enquiry as contemplated under the said
provisions. The decree holder filed the connected writ petition
No. 9300/2024, calling in question the said order dated
06.03.2024.
3. Having heard the learned counsels for the
petitioners in both the writ petitions and respondent No.2-
judgment debtor, this Court finds that the Executing Court,
though directed an enquiry on the application filed by the
applicant/petitioner in W.P.No.17955/2024, on 06.03.2024,
nevertheless, has proceeded to pass another order on
15.06.2024 permitting the decree holder to take further steps
for sale of the immovable property shown in the interlocutory
application filed by the decree holder. Having regard to the
NC: 2024:KHC:30250
chronology of events, as noticed herein above, this Court is of
the considered opinion that such an order permitting sale of the
immovable property could not have been directed by the
Executing Court till an enquiry on the application filed by the
petitioner/impleading applicant was heard and disposed of in a
manner known to law.
4. In that view of the matter, W.P.No.17955/2024 is
allowed. The impugned order dated 15.06.2024 at Annexure
'A' is hereby quashed and set aside.
5. The Executing Court is directed to hold an enquiry
as directed by it, by order dated 16.03.2024. Depending on the
outcome of the enquiry, the Executing Court may proceed to
hear the parties on any other application that has been filed
subsequently. Accordingly, W.P.No.9300/2024 stands
dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
rv
CT: BHK
