Katte Gouda S/O. Keshava Reddy vs Gouravara Hanumanthappa on 24 July, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Katte Gouda S/O. Keshava Reddy vs Gouravara Hanumanthappa on 24 July, 2014

Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2014

                            BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA

      WRIT PETITION NOs.79204 & 79205/2013 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

Katte Gouda,
S/o Keshava Reddy,
Age: 22 years,
R/o Bommanahal Village,
Bellary Taluk & District.                 Petitioner

(By Sri Shivaraja Hiremath, Adv.)

AND

1. Goravara Hanumanthappa,
S/o Lingappa,
Agde: 75 years,
R/o Flower Street,
Bellary.

2. Keshava Reddy,
S/o late Sanna Siddanagouda,
Age: 48 years,
R/o Bommanahal Village,
Bellary Taluk & District.

3. Smt. Chimbli Ananthamma,
W/o Chimbli Satyanarayana,
Age: 41 years,
R/o D No.46/7,
Gadang Steet,
                                2




Cowl Bazaar,
Bellary.                                        Respondents

(Notice to R-2 & 3 is dispensed with)
(Petition dismissed against R-1)

                             ---

      These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order
dated 6.4.2013 passed on I.As.IV and V in E P No.178/2005 on
the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) & JMFC, Bellary, vide
Annexure-H, etc.

     These Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court made the following:

                            ORDER

The petitioner, who is a third party obstructor in Execution Petition No.178/2005 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) & JMFC, at Bellary, is before this Court challenging the order dated 6.4.2013 passed on I.As.IV and V filed in the above-said Execution Petition, at Annexure-H.

2. Respondent No.1 is a Decree Holder and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 2 in the Execution Petition.

3. Notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 was dispensed with. When notice was sent to respondent No.1/Decree Holder, it was returned with an endorsement that she was dead. By order dated 10.1.2014, the Writ Petition was dismissed as against respondent No.1/Decree Holder as abated.

4. Under such circumstances, nothing survives in the Writ Petitions. Accordingly, Writ Petitions are rejected as abated.

Sd/-

Judge Bjs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court