Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddaroodha Swamy Math vs Shekharagouda on 18 July, 2014
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA
WRIT PETITION NO.85267/2013(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDAROODHA SWAMY
MATH TRUST COMMITTEE
HUBLI BY ITS TRUSTEES
1. DAHRNRNENDRA B. JAVALI
AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: PENSIONER, RESIDING
AT NO.125, PADMA, MADHURA CHETANA
COLONY, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI 580 023.
2. GEETA S.G. , DAUGHTER OF
SHIVANAND SWAMI,
AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: SOCIAL WORK,
RESIDING AT NO.20
BANKERS COLONY, HUBLI.
3. NARAYANPRASAD APPA PRASAD PATHAK
AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL ENGINEER,
RESIDING AT MAGAJIKONDI LAYOUT,
BEHIND NAREGAL NURSING HOME,
SIDDARODHA NAGAR, HUBLI 580 024.
4. BASAVARAJ CHANNABASAPPA
KALYANSHETTAR, AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS.
OCCUPATION BUSINESS, RESIDING AT
NO. 113, SIDDARODHA NILAY,
MADHURA PARK, SANTOSH NAGAR, HUBLI
5. JYOTHI YOGISH SALIMATH
:2:
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: SOCIAL WORK,
RESIDING AT NO.157
BASAVEWHSAR NAGAR
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI 580 021.
6. SHIVARUDRAPPA D. UKKALI,
AGE ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC: PENSIONER
RESIDING AT DANESHWARI 1 STAGE
AKSHAYA COLONY, NEAR CHETANA
COLLEGE HUBLI 580 030
7. PARWATGOUDA SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER
RESIDING AT NO.64, 4TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE,
AKSHAYA COLONY, HUBLI 580 030.
8. YELLAPPA A. DODDAMANI
AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS
OCC: PENSIONER
RESIDING AT NO.39
ANUGRHA SHAKTI NAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI 580 030.
9. NARAYANASA LAXMANSA NIRANJAN
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
RESIDING AT NO.39, VAISHNAVI
BANASHANKARI LAYOUT
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI 580 032.
10.NARAYAN T. MEHARWADE
AGE ABOUT 77 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, RESIDING AT
NO.18/19, ANUSUYA NIVAS LAXMI
NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI 580 030
11.MAHENDRKUMAR HASTIMAL SINGHI
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT NO.54, SHIVAGANG LAYOUT
OPP MADHURA COLONY, KESHWAPUR,
HUBLI 580 023.
:3:
12.KARABASAPPA M. MAKANUR,
AGE ABOUT 53, OCC: AGRICULTURE
RESIDING AT KURABAGERI SOPPINPETH
NANDISHWAR NAGAR, RANEBENNUR 581 115.
13.ANANDKURMAR APPU MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
RESIDING AT MANJUNATH LAYOUT
SHIVAGIRI DHARWAD
14.SHAMANAND B. PUJARI,
AGE ABOUT 42 YERS, OCC: ADVOCATE
RESIDING AT CHIKKANANDI
TALUKA GOKAK 591 233.
15.KENCHANGOUDA LINGANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
RESIDING AT ADVOCATE SARASWATPUR
DHARWAD.
16.BASAVAREDDY VENKAREDDY
SOMAPUR AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT ANUGRAHA
BEHIND MODERN SCHOOL
SARASWATPUR, DHARWAD.
17.GADIGAYYA SIDDAYYA AMOGIMATH
AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
RESIDING AT OPP. NEW BUS STAND,
DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH ANDANIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
SHEKHARAGOUDA
SON OF SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS,
OCC: PENSIONER
RESIDING AT SIDDRODHA MATH CHAWAL,
STATION ROAD, HUBLI. .. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.G. BHAT, ADV.)
:4:
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 06/08/2013 ALLOWING I.A.NO.I IN EXECUTION
PETITION NO.49/2013 AT ANNEXURE-E DISMISSAL OF EXECUTION
PETITION NO.49/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRIINCIPAL CVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC HUBL(ANNEXURE -E)
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELMNARY
HEARNIG N B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners who are decree holders in Execution case No.49/2013 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, at Hubli are before this Court praying for setting aside the order dated 06/08/2013 passed on I.A.No.I in the above said case at Annexure "E" and also to restore the Execution Petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.71/2004 on the file of Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division) at Hubli for ejectment against the respondent and the suit was decreed. Thereafter, execution petition was filed in No.49/2013 on the file of Principal Civil Judge at Hubli for possession of the suit schedule property but the respondent/judgment debtor filed an application under :5: Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to dismiss the Execution Petition on the ground that the decree was in-executable and the same is hit by provisions of Small Cause Courts Act. He submits that the objections to application as per Annexure "D1" was filed but the trial Court erred in allowing the application and dismissing the execution petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the decree made in O.S.No.71/2004 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division) at Hubli, was challenged by the respondent/defendant in R.A.No.73/2008 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Hubli unsuccessfully. Thereafter, Execution Petition came to be filed for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. There was no good ground for dismissal of Execution Petition and apart from that, Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC under which :6: decree holder can file an application for removal resistance/obstruction. The executing Court, without application of mind erred in allowing the application and dismissing the Execution Petition. Hence, I pass the following order:
Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06/08/2013 passed on I.A.I filed in Execution Petition No.49/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division) at Hubli at Annexure "E" is quashed. Consequently, the Executing Court is directed to restore the Execution Petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
(Sd/-) JUDGE Kmv