Karnataka High Court
Shri.Vishal S/O Gajanan Soudagar vs Rafikahmed Mammadhanif Pachapur on 7 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5022
WP No. 106834 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.106834 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. VISHAL S/O. GAJANAN SOUDAGAR
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/AT: CHIKKODI-591201, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. VINAYAK S/O. GAJANAN SOUDAGAR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: CHIKKODI-591201, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI. VINOD S/O. GAJANAN SOUDAGAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: CHIKKODI-591201, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. SUSHILA W/O. GAJANAN SOUDAGAR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: CHIKKODI-591201, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. RAFIKAHMED MAMMADHANIF PACHAPUR
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2024.03.14
12:15:33 +0530 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
(SCRAP MERCHANT),
R/O. JAMAKHANDI-587301,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. SMT. ANSUYA W/O. RAJARAM SOUDAGAR
THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 8
HAVE BEEN TREATED AS LRs OF
THE DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.2
VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2020.
3. SMT. LEELA W/O. SIDRAM AADSOOTI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5022
WP No. 106834 of 2019
R/AT: ATHANI-591304,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SURESH SHINDHE
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: ATHANI-591304,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SMT. SHAMA W/O. DNYANESHWAR TAKKATRAO
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: ATHANI-591304,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SMT. INDU W/O. EKANATH SANNAKI
AGED: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: ATHANI-591304,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SMT. REKHA W/O. KRISHNA BANDARE
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: ATHANI-591304,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. SMT. VITHYA W/O. ASHOK VIJAPUR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: ATHANI-591304,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRASAD R.SIDDHANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.7 IN
EP.NO.10/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, ATHANI PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURES-A; ISSUE A
WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.8 IN
E.P.NO.10/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, ATHANI PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURES-B
RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5022
WP No. 106834 of 2019
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing
the order dated 31.10.2018 in E.P.No.10/2002 on the file
of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Athani,
allowing I.A.Nos.7 and 8.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and taking into account the factual aspects on
record, would indicate that, the suit filed by the
respondents herein, in O.S.No.182/1994 came to be
decreed by the trial Court on 26.09.1998 and directed the
plaintiff therein to deposit the remaining consideration
amount of Rs.25,000/- within three months from the date
of Judgment and decree.
4. However, the respondent herein sought to
deposit the said sum in E.P.No.10/2002 and in this regard,
the said application filed by the respondent herein came to
be allowed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5022
same, the defendants/petitioners herein have filed this
writ petition.
5. Having taken note of the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as well as it
is not in dispute that, the Judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court directing the respondents herein to deposit
Rs.25,000/- within three months from the date of
Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the
said process has not been complied with by the
respondent herein, as the respondent herein failed to
make effort to deposit the same resulting in filing
I.A.Nos.7 and 8 in E.P.No.10/2002.
6. Taking into account the language employed
under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the trial
Court ought to have considered the plea made by the
petitioner herein to take up the defence if any under law in
view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of V.S.Palanichamy Chettiar Firm Vs. C.
Alagappan and another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 918.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5022
7. In that view of the matter, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated
31.10.2018 in E.P.No.10/2002 is set aside and the matter
is remitted to the trial Court for re-hearing the application
on I.A.Nos.7 and 8 and pass appropriate orders in terms of
the observations made above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
