Karnataka High Court
R. Krishnamurthy vs Veeramma on 16 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:41903
WP No. 8832 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 8832 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
R. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGED 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.11,
SREE RANGA NILAYA,
2ND CROSS, I MAIN,
RAGHAVENDRA NAGARA,
TUMAKURU TOWN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIABHAV R.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VEERAMMA,
D/O LINGAPPA
W/O LATE CHIKKERAIAH
AGED 68 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by
MARKONAHALLI 2. L. SIDDAGANGAMMA
RAMU PRIYA D/O LINGAPPA
Location: HIGH W/O BOMMALINGANNA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF
BOMMEGOWDANAPALYA,
BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK-572107.
3. PARVATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O LATE VEERANNA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:41903
WP No. 8832 of 2023
4. GIRISH
S/O PARVATHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
5. LINGAPPA
BROTHER OF LATE VEERANNA
MAJOR,
6. CHKKA VEERAMMA
W/O SRI. LINGAPPA
AGED 73 YEARS,
7. L. SHIVARUDRAIAH
S/O SRI. LINGAPPA
AGED 48 YEARS
8. UMADEVI
W/O L. SHIVARUDRAIAH
AGE: 43 YEARS
9. B. SHIVAPRASAD
S/O L. SHIVARUDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.3-9 ARE RESIDING AT
B.G.PALYA, SOREKUNTE,
MAJARE, BELLARI HOBLI,
TUMKURU TALUK-572107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2024, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.3
TO 9 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED ON I.A UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CPC AND OBJECTION
FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 97 OF THE CPC ALLOWING BY ITS
ORDER DATED 15.10.2022 IN EX.NO.42/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:41903
WP No. 8832 of 2023
II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TUMAKURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question
an order dated 15.10.2022 passed by the II Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru, (henceforth referred to as 'the
Executing Court') in Ex. No.42/2011 by which an interlocutory
application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') and objection under Order
XXI Rule 97 of CPC were allowed.
2. The petitioner herein filed a suit for specific
performance which came to be compromised and an execution
petition in Ex. No.42/2011 was filed to execute the decree.
Smt. Veeramma and Smt. L. Siddagangamma, the daughters of
one of the judgment debtor - Sri Lingappa filed an application
under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to come on
record as objectors in the said execution petition and filed
NC: 2024:KHC:41903
objections under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC., to the execution
petition. The Executing Court recorded the evidence of one of
the objectors - Smt. Veeramma as PW.1 and she marked
documents as Exs.P1 to P3. The decree holder did not lead any
evidence. However, he marked Ex.D1 through PW.1. The
Executing Court after considering the material on record,
allowed the application filed under Section 151 of CPC and
objections filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC in terms of the
impugned order.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is
before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the suit properties were the self acquisition of the judgment
debtors and therefore, the objectors had no right to contest the
execution petition on the premise that the suit properties were
the ancestral properties of the judgment debtors.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the objectors /
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the impugned order
passed on the objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC., is a
NC: 2024:KHC:41903
decree as provided under Order XXI Rule 103 of CPC., and
therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it was
an order passed on an application filed under Section 151 of
CPC and objections filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC.
Under Order XXI Rule 103 of CPC., any adjudication of an
application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC is deemed to be a
decree and the Rules applicable to appeals against such decree
have to be resorted to if the impugned order has to be
challenged.
8. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is not
maintainable and therefore, the same is dismissed. However,
liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the impugned
order passed by the Executing Court in an appropriate appeal.
The time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted
while calculating limitation applicable to such an appeal. All
contentions of the parties are kept open.
NC: 2024:KHC:41903
9. Office is directed to return the certified copy of the
impugned order after retaining a photocopy of the same.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SMA
