[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Geetawwa W/O Mahagundappa Budihal on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4263
CRP No. 100066 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100066 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BELAGAVI.
REP. ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
NAVANGAR, BAGALAKOTE,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
ARIHANT PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR, KUSUGAL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, THROUGH ITS ASST. MANAGER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NR KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GEETAWWA
W/O MAHAGUNDAPPA BUDIHAL @ HULGERI,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANT
S/O MAHAGUNDAPPA BUDIHAL @ HULGERI,
Digitally signed by AGE. 18 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
3. MALLAWWA W/O KANAKAPPA BUDIHAL @ HULGERI,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
Dharwad
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NANDIKESHWARA,
TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-580078.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 & R2-SERVED; R3-DISMISSED AS ABATED)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115
OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN EP
NO.17/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BAGALKOTE AND SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.02.2022 BY ALLOWING THIS CIVIL
REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4263
CRP No. 100066 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 16.02.2022 passed by Senior Civil
Judge and J.M.F.C., Bagalkot in Execution Case no.17/2017
allowing memo of calculation filed by respondents herein, this
revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Nagangounda R Kuppelur, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that revision was by Judgment Debtor
('JDr', for short) in an execution petition filed by respondents -
Decree Holders ('DHrs', for short) for execution of award dated
04.10.2007 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Bagalkote in WC.no.131/2005. It was submitted,
claim petition filed under provisions of Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923 ('WC Act', for short) in WC.no.131/2005, wherein
DHRs were awarded compensation of Rs.3,20,355/- with interest
at rate of 12% per annum from 04.10.2007. Said award was
challenged by JDr before this Court in MFA.no.14048/2007 in
which JDr had deposited award amount with interest, but appeal
came to be dismissed on 13.01.2017 and amount deposited with
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4263
HC-KAR
interest accrued was transmitted on 15.05.2017. Thereafter on
29.08.2018, JDr made further deposit of Rs.36,757/- which
according to, it was difference in interest amount. However on
06.09.2018, DHrs filed memo of calculation in Execution Case,
claiming that JDr was due a further sum of Rs.1,43,297/-.
Though said memo of calculation was opposed by JDr, after
securing calculation of balance amount from its registry,
Executing Court passed impugned order directing JDr to pay
balance amount of Rs.2,18,055/-. Aggrieved thereby, this
petition is filed.
3. Main ground urged against impugned order was that
award amount was deposited by JDr before this court in appeal.
On dismissal of appeal, amount was transmitted with interest
accrued. Therefore, JDr would not be liable to pay interest, since
it was already deposited and balance amount was also deposited.
Thus, award was satisfied and Executing Court was not justified
in passing impugned order. On said ground sought for allowing
revision.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4263
HC-KAR
4. It is seen that while DHrs.no.1 and 2 are served
unrepresented, revision petition is dismissed as abated against
DHr.no.3 and no steps are taken.
5. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and
material placed on record.
6. This revision is filed under Section 115 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) by JDr against order
passed by Executing Court. At outset, learned counsel for
petitioner was called upon to establish maintainability of revision
in view of proviso to Section 115 of CPC barring revision, except
against orders, if reversed and passed in favour of revision
petitioner would finally conclude proceedings. Even on merits
also his attention was drawn to provisions of Order XXI Rules 1
and 2 of CPC regarding formalities to be complied at time of
making deposit of decretal amount. Admittedly, there are no
pleadings or material on record to establish that deposit was
under intimation of DHrs. Unilateral deposit, without complying
with provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 of CPC, would not arrest
interest from continuing to accrue.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4263
HC-KAR
7. Apart from above, there is no specific order passed
by this Court while dismissing insurer's appeal against award.
Consequently, interest would continue to accrue from date of
award till amount is received by Executing Court, which is on
15.05.2017. While passing impugned order Executing Court has
noted same as well as subsequent payment of Rs.36,757/- made
on 29.08.2018. Normal mode of appropriation would be to
calculate award with interest upto date of payment and consider
amount first towards interest accrued and thereafter adjust
balance against principal. The balance amount would continue to
earn interest till next deposit or till satisfying of entire award.
8. While passing impugned order, Executing Court has
followed said method and held JDr liable to pay amount. No
material irregularity can be found with same nor Executing Court
cannot be contended to have failed to exercise jurisdiction
vested or exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. Thus there are
no grounds to entertain revision. Revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47
