Karnataka High Court
Smt. S.V. Vasudha vs M/S. Mayura Finance Corporation on 25 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22343
W.P. No.12281/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.12281/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. S.V. VASUDHA
W/O SRI. S. GOWRISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2. SRI. S. GOWRISHANKAR
S/O D. SADASHIVA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
Digitally signed
[AMENDED BEFORE COURT DIED
by RUPA V SINCE THE PETITIONER NO.1 IS ONLY
Location: High LEGAL HEIR REP. BY PETITIONER NO.1
Court of OF DECEASED PETITIONER NO.2]
karnataka
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1337
5TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR
BANGALORE-560050.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADV.,
V/O/DTD:09.06.2025 P1 SHALL BE
TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF P2)
AND:
M/S. MAYURA FINANCE CORPORATION
SANTHEPETE
REP. BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. N. SUNDERAM
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
MYSORE-570024.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A. BALAKRISHNAN, ADV.,)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22343
W.P. No.12281/2019
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 05.03.2019 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION
2286/2006 BY THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE OF BENGALURU
(CCH-32) AS PER ANNEXURE-S AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE
EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS AS NOT MAINTAINABLE, AS TIME
BARRED TO ENFORCE THE DECREE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ONE,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"Set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2019
passed in Execution Petition 2286/2006 by the
Hon'ble City Civil Judge of Bengaluru (CCH-32) as
per Annexure-S and consequently quash the
Execution proceedings as not maintainable, as time
barred to enforce the decree against the petitioners
one, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Sri.Madhukar Nadig, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an application
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
to pass an order as to the maintainability of the execution by
the claimant whose status is yet to be established. The
affidavit accompanying the application indicates that the
petitioners primarily contended that the execution petition filed
in Ex.P.No.27/1999 on 09.01.1999 came to be transferred at
NC: 2025:KHC:22343
HC-KAR
the instance of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent has
filed fresh execution petition in Ex.P.No.2286/2006 before the
City Civil Court. The earlier execution petition was filed by one
Sri.R.K.Honnegowda and the latter execution petition was filed
by one Sri.N.Sunderam and he has no authorization to file the
petition. It is further submitted that the execution petition
filed in Bengaluru in Ex.P.No.2286/2006 is barred by limitation.
To file an execution, 12 years limitation is provided and the
judgment and decree is dated 05.04.1989. Hence, the Trial
Court ought to have rejected the execution petition on two
counts, one is that Sri.N.Sunderam has no authorization to file
fresh execution petition and secondly, the execution petition
filed in Bengaluru is beyond the period of limitation. It is also
submitted that the filing of successive execution petition by the
decree holder would not revive the period of limitation. In
support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in the case of KRISHNA REDDY, SINCE
DECEASED BY HIS LRS. Vs. SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER, BDA, BENGALURU1. He, therefore
CRP No.128/11 decided on 19.06.13
NC: 2025:KHC:22343
HC-KAR
seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order
and by closing the execution petition.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent supports the impugned order in this petition and
submits that the initial execution petition was filed on
09.06.1989 before the II Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, and
the same came to be transferred by the said Court to the Court
of Small Causes, Mysuru, which was re-numbered as
Ex.P.No.1379/1994. Later, the said execution petition came to
be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the respondent
filed Ex.P.No.27/1999 before the Court of Small Causes,
Mysuru, on 09.01.1999. Thereafter, the respondent sought
transfer of the said proceedings to the Small Causes Court,
Bengaluru, on the ground that the petitioners have shifted their
residence and accordingly, the said Court has transferred the
proceedings to the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
However, the said case was never taken up by the Court of
Small Causes, Bengaluru. Later, the office was directed to send
the papers to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and the said
execution petition was re-numbered as Ex.P.No.2286/2006 and
NC: 2025:KHC:22343
HC-KAR
thereafter, the proceedings were continued. It is submitted
that the respondent did not file any successive execution
petition and that the petition filed was well within the
reasonable time. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent
and meticulously perused the material available on record. I
have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced on both the sides.
5. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.422/1988
which was decreed. To execute the judgment and decree, the
petitioners filed execution petition before the II Addl. Civil
Judge, Mysuru. However, the said Court transferred the
execution proceedings to the Small Causes Court, Mysuru, and
the same was re-numbered as Ex.P.No.1379/1994. The
material on record further indicates that the said execution
petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on
15.02.1997. The material on record further indicates that the
respondent filed Ex.P.No.27/1999 before the Small Causes
NC: 2025:KHC:22343
HC-KAR
Court, Mysuru, on 09.01.1999. The said execution petition was
filed well within the period of limitation provided under Article
136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The records also indicate that
the respondent has sought transfer of the said execution
proceedings to Bengaluru on the ground that the petitioners
have shifted their residence to Bengaluru and accordingly, the
said proceedings were transferred to the Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru, on 31.08.2005. However, the Court of Small
Causes, Bengaluru, could not proceed with the execution
petition and later the office forwarded the said petition to the
City Civil Court for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the said
petition was re-numbered by the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, as
Ex.P.No.2286/2006 and continued the proceedings. The
aforesaid facts and events clearly indicate that the initiation of
proceedings by the respondent by filing the execution petition
was well within the limitation provided to initiate the execution
proceedings. The transfer of execution petition from one Court
to another at the instance of the party or the Court itself would
not take away the limitation. The proceedings were never
closed but the same proceedings were continued and it resulted
NC: 2025:KHC:22343
HC-KAR
in entertaining the execution proceedings before the City Civil
Court, Bengaluru, in Ex.P.No.2286/2006.
6. The Trial Court, considering all these aspects has
held that the validity of the execution petition was well within
the time of limitation and rejected the contention urged by the
petitioners. Insofar as another contention with regard to the
authorization of Sri.N.Sunderam, the Trial Court recorded a
finding that the resolution dated 05.05.2004 was produced and
based on the same, the execution petition is entertained. I do
not find any error in the finding recorded by the Trial Court on
that point also. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, in the said case, the award
was of the year 1985 and the execution proceedings were
initiated beyond 12 years. That is not the case on hand. There
is no dispute that the successive execution petition would not
revive the limitation. However, in the case on hand, there is no
successive execution petition. There is only one execution
petition filed before the Small Causes Court at Mysuru, which
was later transferred to Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, and
then to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. Hence, the contention
NC: 2025:KHC:22343
HC-KAR
urged by the petitioners has no merit. Accordingly, the same
is rejected. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by
the Trial Court.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
