K Munirathnam Naidu vs J R Shankarappa on 25 June, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K Munirathnam Naidu vs J R Shankarappa on 25 June, 2013

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

                          1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                    BANGALORE

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

                       BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVATSALA

        WRIT PETITION No.22090/2013 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

K MUNIRATHNAM NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE K.M.DORAISWAMY NAIDU,
R/AT KANGANGADLAHALLI,
KYSAMBALLI HOBLI, KGF,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DIST-563 122                  ...PETITIONER

(By Sri. PUTTIGE R RAMESH, ADV.)

AND :

1 J R SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O J.M.RAVANAPPA,
R/AT NO.360, PRITCHARD ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET,
KGF-563 122

2 SMT.LAKSHMI DEVI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O J.R.SHANKARAPPA,
R/AT NO.360, PRITCHARD ROAD,
                             2


ROBERTSONPET,
KGF-563 122.                            ...RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. C PATTABI RAMAN, FOR
      M/s. PR & PR ASSTS., ADVS.)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 17.4.2013 IN EXECUTION NO.16/2011 OF
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KGF AS AT
ANNEXURE-A.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Petitioner who is Judgment Debtor in Execution Case No.16/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, KGF, is before this Court praying for quashing the Order dated 17.04.2013 made in the above said case at Annexure 'A'.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Commissioner warrant issued at Annexure 'F', Taluka Surveyor, Bangarpet, was appointed as a Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining whether the decreetal property was demolished or not. He 3 submits that no notice was issued before visiting the spot and apart from that Commissioner warrant is not executed by Taluka Surveyor. He further submits that as per the decision reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3588 (SHAMANNA SETTY vs. B.L.CHANNEGOWDA), the Court Commissioner has no right to delegate the work to any other person and in spite of filing objection to the Commissioner's report, executing Court has issued delivery warrant by passing the impugned Order.

3. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/decree- holders submits that with regard to the objection raised by the petitioner in so far as the Commissioner report is still pending. He further submits that as per the Judgment and Decree, respondents are entitled for possession of 13 shops and therefore, the Executing Court has issued delivery warrant keeping the question of demolition of the shops after the delivery of possession of the property.

4 Admittedly, the report has been submitted by the Tahsildar. Whether the report submitted by the Tahsildar with regard to the existence of the suit schedule premises or otherwise is still pending before the executing Court and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order in so far as issuing delivery warrant.

5. In the result, Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE bnv*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court