Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sushma vs Smt. M P Jagadamba on 10 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20206
WP No. 21042 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25531 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 21042 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 25531 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
IN WP NO. 21042/2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUSHMA,
D/O LATE RAJU,
W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR L.C,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/OF LALANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BASARAJAPURA POST,
K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSURU - 571 602.
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
signed by V
MANJUSHA
BAI AND:
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka 1. SMT. M.P. JAGADAMBA,
W/O MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK.
2. SMT. SUVARNAMMA,
W/O LATE GURULINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20206
WP No. 21042 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25531 of 2022
KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK.
3. SMT. PREMA,
D/O LATE GURULINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
(D GROUP EMPLOYEE MYSURU UNIVERSITY),
R/AT D. NO.L-68, 5TH CROSS,
J.C. ROAD, GANGOTHRI QUARTERS,
MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSURU.
4. SMT. MANGALAMMA,
W/O LATE VISHWA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
5. H.K. RENUKAPRASAD,
S/O LATE KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
6. H.K. REKHA,
D/O LATE KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
7. SMT. KOMALA,
D/O LATE RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
8. SUMA,
D/O LATE RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
9. SMT. NEELAMBIKA,
W/O LATE REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
10. H.K. GURUPRASAD,
S/O LATE REVANNA,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:20206
WP No. 21042 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25531 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
11. H.R. SHILPA,
AGED 30 YEARS,
D/O LATE REVANNA,
THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 11 ARE
R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 129,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2024 NOTICE TO R2 TO R11 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION AT
NANJANGUD ALLOWING IA NO. I ON THE FILE OF EXECUTION
PETITION NO. 19/2020 DATED 04/08/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-F
AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 25531/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUSHMA,
D/O LATE RAJU,
W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR L.C,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/OF LALANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BASARAJAPURA POST,
K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSURU - 571 602.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:20206
WP No. 21042 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25531 of 2022
AND:
1. SMT. M.P. JAGADAMBA,
W/O MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK.
2. SMT. SUVARNAMMA,
W/O LATE GURULINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK.
3. SMT. PREMA,
D/O LATE GURULINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
(D GROUP EMPLOYEE MYSURU UNIVERSITY),
R/AT D. NO.L-68, 5TH CROSS,
J.C. ROAD, GANGOTHRI QUARTERS,
MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSURU.
4. SMT. MANGALAMMA,
W/O LATE VISHWA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
5. H.K. RENUKAPRASAD,
S/O LATE KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
6. H.K. REKHA,
D/O LATE KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
7. SMT. KOMALA,
D/O LATE RAJU,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:20206
WP No. 21042 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25531 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
8. SUMA,
D/O LATE RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
9. SMT. NEELAMBIKA,
W/O LATE REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
10. H.K. GURUPRASAD,
S/O LATE REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
11. H.R. SHILPA,
AGED 26 YEARS,
D/O LATE REVANNA,
THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 11 ARE
R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 129.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2024 NOTICE TO R2 TO R11 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING i) TO CALL FOR RECORDS
IN EXECUTION NO. 19/2020 ON THE FILE HONBLE II ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC , AT NANJANGUD.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:20206
WP No. 21042 of 2023
C/W WP No. 25531 of 2022
ORDER
1. Respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.54/2017
against the petitioner herein, which was a suit for specific
performance. It is submitted that the petitioner was placed
Ex-parte and that the suit has been decreed in favour of
respondent No.1 herein. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed
Ex.No.19/2020 for executing the decree passed in
O.S.No.54/2017. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein
filed Mis.No.10/2020 with a prayer to set aside the Ex-
parte order filed against her in O.S.No.54/2017 and give
her an opportunity to contest O.S.No.54/2017. However,
no orders have been passed so far in the said
Miscellaneous Petition, even in respect of condoning the
delay in filing the said Miscellaneous Petition or staying
further proceedings pursuant to the decree passed in
O.S.No.54/2017.
2. In the meanwhile, the Executing Court in
Ex.No.19/2020 has proceeded against the judgment
debtor. Hence, the petitioner preferred an application for
NC: 2024:KHC:20206
stay of further proceedings in Ex.No.19/2020, which has
been rejected and a Court Commissioner has also been
appointed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the decree
holder. Aggrieved by the same, the aforementioned writ
petitions have been filed.
3. In W.P.No.25531/2022, the order of the Execution
Court refusing to stay further proceedings has been
challenged and in W.P.No.21042/2023, the order of
appointment of the Court Commissioner has been
challenged.
4. The case of the petitioner is that she did not have an
opportunity to defend her case in O.S.No.54/2017 and if
further proceedings in Ex.No.19/2020 is not stayed, the
petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the petitioner, though she has filed
Mis.No.10/2020, has chosen not to contest the matter
vigorously and is delaying the same deliberately, because
of which the applications filed for condonation of delay and
NC: 2024:KHC:20206
for stay of the decree passed in O.S.No.54/2017 have not
been considered by the trial Court. For that reason, she
justifies the orders passed by the Executing Court and
prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has not cared to
pursue Mis.No.10/2020 earnestly.
7. It is not in dispute that no interim orders were
passed in Mis.No.10/2020 wherein the delay in filing the
petition has been condoned or there is any stay granted
against the execution of the decree passed in
O.S.No.54/2017. The petitioner is not aggrieved by the
same. She has not preferred any writ petition to direct
Mis.No.10/2020 to be heard expeditiously or the
Interlocutory Applications filed therein to be decided
expeditiously. On the other hand, the petitioner is doing
her best to thwart the Executing Court from executing the
decree passed in O.S.No.54/2017. This action of the
petitioner cannot be appreciated and this Court has to
conclude that the petitioner is only trying to delay the
NC: 2024:KHC:20206
Executing Court executing the decree passed in
O.S.No.54/2017 and she is not interested in defending her
rights and taking an order on merits in Mis No.10/2020.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any
error in the order passed by the Executing Court and
accordingly, the Writ Petitions are hereby
dismissed.
Any of the observations made herein above will not
come in the way of any decision to be taken in
Mis.No.10/2020 and the trial Court shall decide the same
based on the materials placed before it.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CH
CT: BHK
