Karnataka High Court
Bandudev vs Babudev And Ors on 26 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7691
WP NO.201519 OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.201519 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
BANDUDEV
S/O MANIKRAO PATHAK
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HULSOOR VILLAGE,
BASAVAKALYAN TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BABUDEV
S/O MANIKRAO PATHAK,
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RASALKAR
Location: High OCC: AGRICULTURE / SERVICE,
Court Of
Karnataka R/O HULSOOR VILLAGE,
BASAVAKALYAN TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401.
2. RAMESH
S/O MANIKRAO PATHAK,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HULSOOR VILLAGE,
BASAVAKALYAN TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7691
WP NO.201519 OF 2018
3. SMT. MEENAKSHI
W/O LATE SUNILDEV PATHAK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O HULSOOR VILLAGE,
NOW AT: C/O ANRUNRAO PANDITRAO KULKARNI,
NEAR GYANESHWAR MANDIR,
NATH CHOWK, PANDHARPUR
SOLAPUR DISTRICT.
MAHARASHTRA STATE - 413 001.
4. SMT. USHA
W/O WAMAN NAIK
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O HULSOOR VILLAGE,
BASAVAKALYAN TALUK,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401.
5. KIRAN
S/O VILASRAO KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O PARTAPUR
NOW AT: VITHOBA GALLI,
BASAVAKALYAN,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 401.
6. KUM. SONI
D/O LATE SUNILDEV PATHAK
AGED ABOUT22 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HULSOOR VILLAGE,
NOW AT C/O ANRUNRAO PANDITRAO KULKARNI,
NEAR GYANESHWAR MANDIR,
NATH CHOWK, PANDHARPUR,
SOLAPUR DISTRICT
MAHARASHTRA STATE - 413 001.
7. KUM. SAI
S/O LATE SUNILDEV PATHAK
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7691
WP NO.201519 OF 2018
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O HULSOOR VILLAGE,
NOW AT C/O ANRUNRAO PANDITRAO KULKARNI,
NEAR GYANESHWAR MANDIR,
NATH CHOWK, PANDHARPUR,
SOLARPUR DISTRICT,
MAHARASHTRA STATE - 413 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4
AND R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT BASAVAKALYAN DATED 09TH FEBRUARY, 2018 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.I IN EX. NO.05 OF 2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F INSOFAR AS
IT PERTAINS TO RELIEF GRANTED TO DEFENDANTS 1, 4 AND 5
IS CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1, 4 AND 5 IN SAID
EXECUTION PETITION; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 4 and 5.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order dated 09th February, 2018 passed in Execution Petition No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7691 WP NO.201519 OF 2018 Basavakalyana, allowing IA.I. filed by the defendants 1, 4 and
5.
3. Having taken note of the finding recorded by the Executing Court, the decree holder has filed suit in Original Suit No.36 of 2002, seeking partition and separate possession and said suit came to be decreed. Thereafter, Final Decree Proceedings was also allowed, wherein the share of the petitioner/defendant was notified as one-sixth share in the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. Thereafter, the Execution Petition was filed in EX.No.5 of 2015 and in the said Execution Petition, the Trial Court, after considering the Commissioner report filed in the Final Decree Proceedings and as there is no opposition to the said application made by the decree holder, allowed the application IA.1. In that view of the matter, as the share of the parties has been crystallized in Original Suit No.36 of 2002 and the demarcation of property has been made in Final Decree Proceedings No.2 of 2013, taking into account the Court Commissioner report i.e. ADLR report, the Trial Court is justified in allowing IA.1 and therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7691 WP NO.201519 OF 2018 In view of disposal of the main matter, pending IAs does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ARK