Karnataka High Court
Sidagouda Gangonda Patil vs Rayappa Siddappa Pujari on 21 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15013
WP No. 100894 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.100894 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SIDAGOUDA GANGODA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BOMMANAL,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SATYAGOUDA GANGODA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. RAYAPPA SIDDAPPA PUJARI,
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL
Location: High
Court of
REPRESENTATIVES.
Karnataka
1A. KUMARI SHRUTI RAYAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
1B. ANAND RAYAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
1C. SANTOSH RAYAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT: 16 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15013
WP No. 100894 of 2015
(RESPONDENT NO.1C IS
MINORS REPRESENTED BY
MINOR GUARDIAN, GRAND MOTHER,
SMT. TANGEWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA PUJERI,
AGED ABOUT: 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI).
2. CHANAGOUDA SIDAGOUDA PATIL,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
2A. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. CHANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NAGARAL, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2b. SMT. DEEPA W/O. SATAGOUDA KITTUR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2c. UMA W/O. BASAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NAGARAL, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2d. AJAYAGOUDA S/O. BASAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: NAGARAL, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER,
RESPONDENT NO.2C, UMA W/O. BASAGOUDA PATIL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A TO D);
R1 (C) - PETITION IS DISMISSED;
NOTICE TO R1(A) AND R1(B) ARE SERVED;
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE
ENTIRE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS, EX.NO.13/2013 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15013
WP No. 100894 of 2015
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present petition is filed seeking for the following
reliefs:
a) Set-aside the entire Execution proceedings,
Ex.No.13/2013 pending on the file of Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag produced at
Annexure-A;
b) Pass such other order or direction, this
Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstance of
the case.
2. The relevant facts leading to the present petition
are that the respondent No.2 instituted a suit for specific
performance in O.S No.45/2009 against the deceased
respondent No.1 and the petitioners herein who were
arrayed as defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the said suit. During
the pendency of the suit, since the respondent No.1 died,
respondent Nos.1A to 1C were brought on record as his
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15013
legal representatives. A Court guardian was appointed to
represent the interest of respondent Nos.1A to 1C, who
were arrayed as defendant Nos.1A to 1C in the suit. The
said suit for specific performance was decreed by the Trial
Court and the legal representatives of the deceased
defendant No.1 i.e., defendant Nos.1A to 1C were directed
to execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the
plaintiff by receiving a balance sale consideration of
₹50,000/- within two months. To execute the said decree,
the respondent No.2 filed Execution Case No.13/2013.
Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the respondent Nos.1A to 1C being
minors, their guardian appointed in the suit was required
to be notified of the execution proceedings in terms of
Order XXXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081,
and the Trial Court having failed to do so, and instead,
having ordered for issuance of notice to the said legal
Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15013
representatives i.e., respondent Nos.1A to 1C, and the
Trial Court having held that the notice to the said legal
representatives having been duly served, has acted
contrary to Order XXXII Rule 3 of the CPC. Hence, it is
contended that the entire execution proceedings are
irregular and the relief sought for in the present writ
petition is required to be granted.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners herein were defendant
Nos.2 and 3 in the suit and were also arrayed as judgment
debtors No.2 and 3 in the execution proceedings. It is
relevant to note that the decree in the suit is only against
the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 as is
forthcoming from the operative portion of the judgment
dated 10.07.2013 passed in O.S No.45/2009. Hence, the
petitioners who were arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2 in
the suit are not aggrieved by the said judgment as there is
no direction to them to execute the Sale Deed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners have filed R.A No.18/2015 challenging
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15013
the said judgment dated 10.07.2013 passed in O.S
No.45/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the petitioners are claiming right by
virtue of the decree in O.S No.142/2010 and hence, they
were subsequently impleaded in the suit in O.S
No.45/2009 and hence, they are aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed in the said suit.
6. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that if the
petitioners are in any manner aggrieved by the judgment
and decree dated 10.07.2013, passed in O.S No.45/2009,
they have rightly instituted R.A No.18/2015. Further, in
the absence of the petitioners moving the First Appellate
Court for grant of any interim order with regard to
execution of the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2013,
passed in O.S No.45/2009, it cannot be said that the
petitioners herein have any locus standi to file the present
petition challenging any of the proceedings that have
taken place in the execution proceedings.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15013
7. In view of the aforementioned, the above writ
petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PMP
CT-ASC
