Karnataka High Court
Smt. Savakka Kom Shivappa Majati vs Smt. Mahadevi Rudrappa Revannavar on 12 March, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4677
WP No. 114520 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 114520 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVAKKA KOM SHIVAPPA MAJATI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: DADABANATTI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. NINGAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA MAJATI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DADABANATTI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI. SIDDAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA MAJATI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DADABANATTI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SHRI. NIRVANI D/O SHIVAPPA MAJATI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by R/O: DADABANATTI, TQ: HUKKERI,
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH DIST: BELAGAVI.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
5. SHRI. BHIMAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA MAJATI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DADABANATTI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SHRI. BASAVANNI D/O SHIVAPPA MAJATI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DADABANATTI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SURAJ.M.KATAGI., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V.G.BHAT., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4677
WP No. 114520 of 2015
AND:
1. SMT. MAHADEVI RUDRAPPA REVANNAVAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: HANCHINALA, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. VASUNDHRA KOM IRANNA
URF IRAPPA MAJATI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: DADABANATTI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI. KALLAPPA IERANNA URF IERAPPA MAJATI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DADABANATTI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. GOURVVA KENPANNA BADARYAPPAGOUL
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: HONNAPUR, TQ: DIST: DHARWAD.
5. SHRI. SURESH S/O SHIVAPPA MAJATI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DADABANATTI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH.I.ZIRALI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 5;
SRI. CHETHANKUMAR.R.PUJARI., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DINESH.M.KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4677
WP No. 114520 of 2015
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Suraj M.Katagi., counsel on behalf of Sri.V.G.Bhat.,
for the petitioners, Sri.Ramesh I.Zirali., counsel for respondents
2 and 5 and Sri.Chetan Kumar.R. Pujari., counsel on behalf of
Sri.Dinesh M.Kulkarni., for respondent No.3 have appeared in
person.
2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of
Certiorari to quash the order dated 05.01.2007 passed by the
Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Shankeshwara in Execution
Petition No.90/2006 vide Annexure-D and consequently,
restore the same.
3. The short facts are these:
The petitioners are the judgment debtors and the
respondents are the decree holders. The plaintiffs filed a suit
seeking the relief of partition and the Trial Court vide judgment
dated 05.07.1989 decreed the suit. The final decree
proceedings were initiated in FDP No.2/2002. The FDP came to
be disposed of on 04.01.2006. The execution petition was filed
in No.90/2006. The petitioners contend that they were placed
ex-parte before the executing Court. The Executing Court on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4677
05.01.2007 closed the execution proceedings. Under these
circumstances, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition on
several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers
with care.
5. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and
relates to the closing of the execution proceedings. The
petitioners contend that they were placed ex-parte in the
execution case. Their grievance is about the closure of the
execution case; hence, they are seeking restoration.
A true copy of the portion of the order sheet in Execution
Petition No.90/2006 is furnished along with the Writ Petition
and the same is marked as Annexure-D. A perusal of the same
would reflect that on 23.09.2006, the judgment debtors were
placed ex-parte. Thereafter, taking note of the Court
Commissioner's report, the execution petition was closed on
05.01.2007. The petitioners were placed ex-parte back in 2006
and the execution petition was closed back in 2007. However,
the Writ Petition was filed in 2015. There is an inordinate
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4677
almost eight years. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed
on the grounds of delay and laches. The petitioners ought to
have taken recourse by approaching the proper forum under
Order 21 Rule 106 within thirty days. This has not been done.
The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be
rejected.
6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP
