Bhimanna S/O Ningappa Natikar vs Shivalingappa S/O Ningappa Natikar on 19 June, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Bhimanna S/O Ningappa Natikar vs Shivalingappa S/O Ningappa Natikar on 19 June, 2018

Bench: Ravi Malimath

                              1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                    KALABURAGI BENCH

               ON THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

       WRIT PETITION NO.204638 OF 2014 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

BHIMANNA S/O NINGAPPA NATIKAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O NELOGI TALUKA JEWARGI
DISTRICT: GULBARGA - 585 102
                                               ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI GURUBASAVA C. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI N. KRISHNACHARYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA NATIKAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O NELOGI TALUKA JEWARGI
DISTRICT: GULBARGA - 585 102
                                              ... RESPONDENT
(SERVED)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 13.06.2014, PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-K
AND    13.06.2014,   ORDERS   PASSED   ON   I.A.NO.3   AS   PER
                                 2



ANNEXURE-L ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AT
JEWARGI, BY     GIVING AN      OPPORTUNITY    TO DEFEND THE
EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
AT JEWARGI IN E.P.NO.2 OF 2013, ETC.


      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

The respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession in the year 2007. The same was decreed as per the compromise. The final decree proceedings were initiated. A delivery warrant was issued on 06.04.2013, since the petitioner was absent. I.A.III was filed seeking to set aside the order for issuance of delivery warrant of possession dated 06.04.2013. The same was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the absence was not intentional. That he may be granted one more opportunity.

3. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. 3 Notice of the petition was duly served on the petitioner-judgment debtor. He did not appear before the court. Therefore, the order was passed. Even otherwise, the decree that has been granted based on the compromise between the parties. It is not a decree on contest; it is a decree as per the compromise. Therefore giving one more opportunity to the petitioner would be a futile exercise. Hence I find no good ground to interfere with the same. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE sdu CT-RRJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court