Karnataka High Court
Sri Sridhara vs Smt Prema on 28 March, 2019
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.9700 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.SHRIDHARA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SRI.H.C.CHANDRA @ CHANDRANNA
RESIDING AT D.NO.1134
KAREGOWDA STREET
HUNSUR TOWN, HUNSUR
MYSORE DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT.N, ADV.,)
AND:
SMT. PREMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
W/O SRI.RAYAPPA
RESIDING AT D.NO.3380/6
NEW MARUTHI BADAVANE
HUNSUR TOWN
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.S.NAGARAJ, ADV.,)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RELEVANT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HUNSUR
2
IN EXECUTION NO.175/2015 DATED 23.02.2017 AT
ANNEXURE - D IN THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petitioner / Judgment Debtor has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 23.02.2017 in Execution petition No.175/2015 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC at Hunsur, for issuance of arrest warrant to the Judgment Debtor.
2. The respondent is the Decree Holder in O.S.No.148/2014. The said suit filed for recovery of Rs.3,35,648/- and the same came to be decreed on 17.8.2015. Inspite of the decree, the present petitioner / Judgment Debtor has not paid the said amount. The respondent /Decree Holder was forced to file Execution petition No.175/2015 on 3.9.2015. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, according to the petitioner, he has paid a sum of Rs.70,000/-. But 3 according to the respondent, the petitioner has paid only an amount of Rs.60,000/-. When the matter was posted on 23.2.2017, the petitioner has paid only Rs.5,000/-. Hence, the decree holder sought for issuance of arrest warrant against the Judgment Debtor, as the amount payable was very huge and the same has not been paid by the Judgment Debtor. Accordingly, the learned Judge issued arrest warrant to the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.
3. This Court by an order dated 14.3.2017 issued emergent notice and granted stay as prayed for a period four weeks subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the said order.
4. Sri.Shankaranarayana Bhat.N, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner 4 has complied with the order passed by this Court and deposited before the trial Court. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition.
5. According to the petitioner, he has paid a sum of Rs.60,000/-, but the same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent and he has contended that an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- is due from the petitioner. In view of the same, it is for the parties to file memo of calculation before the trial Court and trial Court taking into consideration the memo of calculation filed by both the parties can proceed in accordance with law.
6. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 23.3.2017 in Execution No.175/2015 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC at Hunsur, for issuance of arrest warrant to the petitioner / Judgment Debtor is kept in abeyance, till 5 the memo of calculation is filed by both the parties and trial Court shall proceed thereafter in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that the respondent / decree Holder shall file an application for release of the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor before the trial Court. On application being filed, learned Judge shall release the amount in favour of the Decree Holder.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, the interlocutary applications do not survive for consideration and the same are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB