Karnataka High Court
Smt. Iravva D/O Fakkirappa Halavoor vs Sri Irappa S/O Basappa Halavoor on 31 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979
CRP No. 100156 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100156 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. IRAVVA D/O FAKKIRAPPA HALAVOOR
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MALAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT SUTAGATTI,
TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
2. SMT. GIRIJAVVA D/O FAKKIRAPPA HALAVOOR
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MALAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT SUTAGATTI,
TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI IRAPPA S/O BASAPPA HALAVOOR
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SUTAGATTI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
2. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O BASAPPA HALAVOOR
AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Digitally
signed by
R/O SUTAGATTI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
MANJANNA E
MANJANNA
E Date:
2025.02.04
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
11:07:28
+0530
3. SMT. BASAVVA W/O BASAPPA HALAVOOR
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MANAGUNDI, TQ. KALGHATAGI,
DIST. DHARWAD-581204.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO, THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2024 PASSED IN
MISC.NO.11/2023, BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUBBALLI, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH
AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY
ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION WITH COST THROUGHOUT IN
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979
CRP No. 100156 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
This Civil Revision petition is filed by the respondent
No.3(a) and 3(b) challenging the order dated 08.08.2024
in Misc.No.11/2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Hubballi allowing the application filed by the petitioner
therein under Order XXI Rule 105(1) of CPC.
2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of
adjudication of the revision petition are that the
respondents herein have filed O.S.No.17/1990 seeking
relief of partition and separate possession against the
petitioners herein and the said suit came to be decreed on
04.09.1995 and thereafter the respondents herein have
filed FDP No.14/1996 which came to be decreed on
27.02.2001, Final Decree was drawn. Thereafter, the
respondents herein have filed Ex.No.19/2013 seeking
possession of the schedule property in terms of the Final
Decree Proceedings. It is also forthcoming from the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979
impugned order that the petitioners herein have also filed
O.S.No.231/2015 challenging the decree in
O.S.No.17/1990 and FDP No.14/1996 and the said suit
came to be dismissed against which the petitioners herein
have preferred R.A.No.20/2017 which also came to be
dismissed on 21.01.2021. It is also forthcoming from the
finding recorded by the Trial Court that the respondent
No.3(a) and 3(b) have filed one more suit in
O.S.No.253/1996 seeking partition in respect of schedule
property therein, which came to be decreed on
04.01.2023. It is the contention of the petitioner in
miscellaneous petition that the petitioners herein have
filed I.A.No.2 and 3 in Execution Petition challenging the
maintainability of the Execution Petition. The said case
was posted for hearing on I.A.No.2 and 3. However, on
account of non-appearance of the parties, the Execution
Petition No.19/2013 came to be dismissed for non-
prosecution. Hence, the respondent herein have filed
Miscellaneous No.37/2016 before the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Hubballi seeking restoration of the proceedings in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979
Execution Petition No.19/2013. The said application filed
by the respondent herein under Order XXI Rule 105(1)
read with Section 151 of CPC came to be allowed. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein
(respondents in Misc.No.11/2023) have preferred this
revision petition.
3. I have heard Sri. J.S.Shetty, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned counsel
for petitioners submits that the execution petition is filed
beyond the limitation period and accordingly, sought for
interference of this Court. He also referred to Article 136
and 137 of the Limitation Act and submitted that the
power to challenge the final decree proceedings in FDP
No.14/1996 is within three years. However, as the
execution petition itself is not maintainable and
accordingly, sought for interference by this Court.
4. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having
taken note of the finding recorded by the Court below
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979
would indicate that a suit in O.S.No.17/1990 has been
filed seeking relief of partition and separate possession by
the respondents herein and the said suit came to be
decreed on 04.09.1995 and thereafter FDP No.14/1996 is
filed, which came to be allowed on 27.02.2001 by the
competent Civil Court and accordingly, final decree has
been drawn. Thereafter, the petitioner in Misc.No.11/2023
has filed Execution Petition No.19/2013 seeking
possession of the schedule property in terms of the decree
passed in FDP No.14/1996. It is also forthcoming from the
finding recorded by the competent Court in
Misc.No.11/2023 that the petitioners herein had preferred
O.S.No.231/2015 challenging the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.17/1990 as well as FDP No.14/1996 and the said
suit i.e. O.S.No.231/2015 came to be dismissed and also
the petitioners herein have preferred R.A.No.20/2017,
which also came to be dismissed on 21.01.2021. In the
backdrop of these aspects, the Ex.No.19/2013 was
dismissed for non-prosecution on the ground that neither
the petitioner nor the learned counsel representing the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979
petitioner in the above case, represented the matter.
Hence, the respondents herein have preferred
Misc.No.11/2023 under Order XXI Rule 105(1) read with
Section 151 of CPC.
5. Having taken note of the finding recorded by
the Court below, particularly, with regard to the finding
recorded by the Court at paragraph 7 where the dismissal
of the execution petition is on the ground of default on the
part of the petitioner to represent the matter, the Court
below taking into consideration the fact that the
petitioners therein have succeeded in O.S.No.17/1990 and
FDP No.14/1996 and have the benefit of the judgment and
decree passed therein and therefore, allowed the
application filed under Order XXI Rule 105(1) of CPC. It is
pertinent to mention herein that, the Court below by
exercising its discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that
the dismissal of the Ex. No.19/2013 would not come in the
way of the petitioners therein to get the decree has to be
considered. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979
that though the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners herein urged by referring to Article 136 and
137 of the Limitation Act, however, the said aspect has to
be considered in the execution petition at the time
adjudicating the matter. Hence, I do not find any merit in
the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners. Since this Court is having limited scope
under Section 115 of CPC in respect of revisional
jurisdiction, I do not find any merit in the petition.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
6. In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
