Karnataka High Court
K V Mahesha vs B G Rajendra on 12 December, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
W.P.No.49231/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
K.V.Mahesha,
s/o.K.V.Vasudeva Rao,
aged about 45 years,
r/o.K.R.S. Agrahara,
Kungal town. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri.M.N.Satyaraj, Adv.)
AND :
B.G.Rajendra,
s/o.late Govinda Raju,
aged about 57 years,
r/o.Chowdeshwari Temple street,
now r/o.K.R.S. Agrahara,
near Junior College,
Kunigal. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri.H.V.Devaraju, Adv. for C/R.)
---
This WP is filed u/A.226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India, praying to call for records in Ex.No.9/11 on the file of
2
the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Kunigal & issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari quashing the order dt.17.11.12 passed by
the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Kunigal on IA.No.2 filed
u/S.47 of CPC in Ex.No.9/11 produced at Ann.F and grant
such other reliefs.
This WP coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 17.11.2012, passed by the executing Court in Ex. Case No.9/2011 on I.A. under Section 47 r/w. section 151 of CPC.
3. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for demarcation of the property purchased by him.
3
4. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5. The respondent filed suit in O.S.No.198/2003 for ejection of the petitioner. It came to be decreed. The petitioner preferred an appeal in R.A.No.27/2007 which has been dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent has initiated execution proceedings in execution case No.9/2011. In the said execution proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application for demarcation of the property purchased by him. The executing court has rejected the application. Therefore, this writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the petitioner has purchased a portion of the property which needs to be demarcated and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 4
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. He also submitted that the petitioner instead of delivering possession has filed unnecessary application and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
10. It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.No.198/2003 has been filed by the respondent for ejection of the petitioner. The Trial Court has decreed the suit. It is confirmed in the appeal. Thereafter, the respondent has initiated execution proceedings. The petitioner instead of delivering possession has filed application for demarcation of property purchased by him which is the subject matter in O.S.No.109/2011. The application is misconceived. Therefore, the executing court 5 has rightly rejected the application. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss.